Gt Advanced Standards Research

Evidence-Base Report Advanced Common Core

CEC Knowledge/Skills Evidence-Base Report

ACC1: Leadership and Policy Standard # GTS1K4:

Theories of leadership and role functions central to the administration of gifted and talented programs.

1. References:

Research-based References

Kirby, P.C., Paradise, L.V., & King, M.I. (1992). Extraordinary leaders in education: Understanding transformational leadership. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 303-311. A qualitative study focused on the attributes and actions of school leaders within the paradigm of transformational or inspiration leadership. The researchers concluded that school staff were more responsive to specific actions than to charismatic personal characteristics of the leaders. Lewis, J. D., Cruzeiro, P.A., Hall, C.A. (2007). Impact of two elementary school principals’ leadership on gifted education in their building. Gifted Child Today, 30(2), 56-62. The authors conducted a qualitative study of two principals identified as having successful programs and services for their gifted students. The two leaders came from different communities and districts with different program models, but there were common themes of commitment and instructional leadership. Moon, T.R., Tomlinson, C.A., & Callahan, C.M. (1995). Academic diversity in the middle school: Results of a national survey of middle school administrators and teachers. (Research Monograph 95124). Storrs, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. The study includes a survey of middle school principals with respect to school characteristics, school organization, principal beliefs, curriculum, assessment and practices. Nearly half of the principals believe that middle school students are in a plateau learning period best served by basic skills and small assignments.

Literature/Theory-based References

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 329-351. The author provides a review of the conceptual and empirical development of two recent leadership theories—instructional and transformational. Heck, R.H. & Hallinger, P. (2005). The study of educational leadership and management. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33, 229-244. The authors review the theoretical and scholarly underpinnings of educational leadership from an historical perspective.

Practice-based References

Grantham, T.C. & Ford, D.Y. (1998). Principal instructional leadership can reverse the under-representation of Black student in gifted education. NASSP Bulletin, 82(595), 101-109. The authors recommend that principals focus on teacher supervision and evaluation, staff development, and quality control to address the under-representation of students in programs and services for the gifted.


Stanley, G.K. & Baines, L. (2002). Celebrating mediocrity? How schools shortchange gifted students. Roeper Review, 25, Written for an administrator audience, the authors review the common problems of low expectations and unresponsive schools.

Standard # GTS1S4:

Analyze education policies and related standards at local and national levels and determine their impact on gifted and talented education.

2. References:


Baker, B.D. & Friedman-Nimz, R. (2004). State policies and equal opportunity: The example of gifted education. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 39-64. The study examines the relationship between state policies, including state mandates and state aid allocation, and the availability and participation rates in programs for the gifted and talented. Brown, E., Avery, L., VanTassel-Baska, J., Worley, B., Stambaugh, T. (2006). A five-state analysis of gifted education policies. Roeper Review, 29, 11-23. Using four major data sources of document review, interview, focus groups, and a comparison with the NAGC Pre-K-12 Standards, the researchers analyze across the policies of Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia to determine determine strengths and weaknesses . Landrum, M.S., Katsiyannis, A. & DeWaard, J. (1998). A national survey of current legislative and policy trends in gifted education: Life after the National Excellence Report. Journal for the Education of the gifted, 21, 352-371. The study examined state legislative and policy provisions and investigated state efforts to address the seven initiatives outlined in the U. S. Department of Education report. Robinson, A., & Moon, S. M. (2003). A national study by local and state advocacy in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 8-25. A survey and cross-case analysis of successful local and state advocacy. A key finding was the use of policies and procedures to secure additional services for gifted students or as a strategy to prevent a rollback of services.


Gallagher, J.J. (2002). Society’s role in educating gifted students: The role of public policy. (Research Monograph 02162). Storrs, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. A review of the use of legislation, court decisions, administrative rule making, and professional standards as policy tools. Five policies are recommended for fulfilling the national commitment to educating gifted students: (1) the development of multi-dimensional identification protocols; (2) mandating greater participation of minority students; (3) greater support for developing differentiated curricula; (4) the development of evaluation procedures that focus on improved student performance; and (5) additional support services for teachers.


Stephens, K. R. (2008). Applicable federal and state policy, law and legal considerations in gifted education. In S.I. Pfieffer (Ed.). Handbook of gifted and talented: A psychological approach. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. A review of the laws, policies and legal tools accessed by educators and parents to acquire services for gifted children.


Clinkenbeard, P.R., Kolloff, P.B., & Lord, E.W. (2007). A guide to state policies in gifted education. CD-ROM. Washington DC: National Association for Gifted Children. A review of state policies focuses on four areas: identification, program and curriculum, personnel, and program management. Gallagher, J. J. (2004). No child left behind and gifted education. Roeper Review, 26, 121-123. A discussion of the difficulties presented to high achieving learners in the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements of NCLB. Stephens, K.R. & Karnes, F.A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66(2), 219-238. A review of the federal definition and of other definitions of giftedness that have impacted state definitions.


Standard # GTS1S5:

Develop group facilitation and problem-solving skills for conducting leadership activities in gifted and talented education.

3. References:


Dear colleagues: Please discuss this skill outcome and its meaning to you. The research on groups is vast and much of it is neither current, nor directly applicable to adults in gifted education. The research on group facilitation is scarce and is also not tied closely to educators, let alone educators in gifted education. Finally, how do you wish to conceptualize the use of the Creative Problem Solving model with respect to this outcome? It is more likely to be used with students than with adults in the field. Do you wish to include it? If so, please suggest specific research and literature/theory-based references. Thanks for your input. Finally, across all the outcomes in this section, I have had to rely on some citations that are older than I would like. ACCS.S3, the section on publications and presentations, was particularly elderly. Suggestions welcome. Ann Robinson


Smith, G. (2001). Group development: A review of the literature and a commentary on future research directions. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, 3, 14-46.


The author reviews developmental models of groups and teams in organizations. Group development is defined as the changes over time in the structure, processes, and culture of groups. The article focuses on work groups and work teams. Treffinger, D.J., & Isaksen, S.G. (2005). Creative Problem Solving: The history, development and implications for gifted education and talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 342-353. Although the focus of this review is on the use of the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model as a strategy for students, the history and development of the model are relevant to the use of CPS with educators in the field of gifted education.


Eller, J. (2004). Effective group facilitation in education: How to energize meetings and manage difficult groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. The text includes nine chapters on the specifics of facilitating different kinds of groups common in education and the social science disciplines.


ACC2: Program Development and Organization

Standard # GTS2K6:

Key features, similarities, and differences in program development practices for general, gifted and talented, and special education

4. References:


Swanson, J. D. (2007). Policy and practice: A case study of gifted education policy implementation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 131-164.

Abstract: In this case study, South Carolina's gifted education policy development, changes, and

implementation are explored from three perspectives: policymakers, linkers, and adopters.

Document review and individual and focus group interviews with policymakers, those who

develop statute, regulation, and policy; linkers, district persons who implement policy; and

adopters, school-based persons, comprised data sources. Research questions include how did

general education reform create change in gifted education between 1984 and 2004? What were

the primary influences? Locally, how was meaning made? General education reform produced a

nonlinear process of gifted policy implementation, resources to develop gifted programs, and

attention to equity and access issues. Primary change influences were leadership and political

relationships. Required teacher endorsement created local impact. Need exists for curriculum

policy development. (Contains 1 figure and 4 tables.) (ERIC abstract).



Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.

Summary: Planning and Implementing Programs for the Gifted is a comprehensive examination

of and guide to issues and practices related to developing programs for gifted students in

elementary and secondary schools. The

emphasis is on the author’s system approach to program planning, an approach that stands in

contrast to the

“packaged-program” approach that will be familiar to many readers. Rather than advocating a

single programming

model that purports to be appropriate for all settings, the author stresses the need to develop

programs for the

gifted that are based upon and responsive to the peculiarities of specific localities. Among the

topics covered are:

Defining the target population: What is giftedness in schools, The system approach to program

planning: A

diagnostic-prescriptive model for program development, Conducting a needs assessment,

Identifying gifted students

in the elementary and secondary schools, Program format: The effective delivery of services,

Selecting teachers and

other program staff, Curriculum for the gifted: What is defensible differentiated curriculum, and

Evaluating programs

for the gifted. This book will be of interest to school personnel involved with planning, operating,

revising, and

evaluating programs for the gifted, as well as to students and scholars in the field of the education

of the gifted.

(Summary from book)

Callahan, C. (1996). A critical self-study of gifted education: Healthy practice, necessary evil, or sedition? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 148–163. Abstract: Examines the field of gifted education giving an overview of the positive aspects of the

field as well as the

possible short-comings. The author describes contributions and triumphs of the field, including

recognition of

individual differences, innovative assessment, commitment to high standards and raising the

ceiling of instruction,


stress on process and metacognitive skills, and real-world problem solving which have made

gifted education high

quality education. The weakness of gifted education, such as the notion of a program, persistent

narrowness of

definition and identification, inappropriate adoption of measurement models as bases for

curriculum development,

lack of evaluation, and poor relationships with other programs, are also described. The author

urges self-examination

of the field of gifted education, to look for ways to make the efforts of educators more effective,

and better serve

students in general. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) (Abstract

from article)

Dixon, F. A. (Ed.). (2009). Programs and services for gifted secondary students: A guide to

recommended practices. Waco, TX: Prufrock.

Abstract: (from the cover) Programs and Services for Gifted Secondary Students is designed to

be a reference for service and program options for practitioners, administrators, and coordinators

of gifted education programs. As such, it is a companion to the lengthier and more in-depth The

Handbook of Secondary Gifted Education. The first of three parts focuses on the gifted

adolescent and his or her cognitive, social and emotional dimensions, including suggestions for

academic, personal/social, and career exploration best practices. The second part describes

programmatic offerings available for gifted secondary students, such as Advanced Placement

(AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) programming, distance learning, magnet and other

special schools, study abroad, and early entrance to college options. The final section presents a

view of optimal future directions—taking into account very real obstacles to change in today's

high schools, as well as the range of intellectual and emotional development among gifted

adolescents. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) Hertbery-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted

programs and is sufficient – Classroom teachers have the time, the skills, and the will to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 251-253.

This article discusses how the technique of differentiation within a classroom is not sufficient

alone to provide the

appropriate challenges and experiences gifted and talented students require to meet their full

potential.

Differentiation should be appropriately used and incorporated with other methods to fully serve

gifted students.


Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2003). Do we change gifted children to fit gifted programs, or do we changed gifted programs to fit gifted children? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 304-313. Abstract: In this article, I present a framework that can be used in our work with special groups

of gifted students--one that recognizes the effects of socioeconomic status (SES), racism, and

other limiting factors on educational achievement and provides a blueprint for interventions. This

framework stems from Urie Bronfrenbrenner's ecological theory of development and emphasizes

the role of social support systems in the development of talent. I then argue that two important

reasons to retain a strong focus on programs that serve minority students include the fact that the

gap in achievement between minority and nonminority children is pervasive and exists even at

high socioeconomic levels and that minority students' underachievement is largely attributable to

cultural factors within our society. (Abstract by author)

Purcell, J. H., & Eckert, R. D. (2006). (Eds.). (2006). Designing services and programs for high

ability learners: A guidebook for gifted education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. (Jointly published with the National Association for Gifted Children.)

Abstract: This book will help the reader every step of the way with detailed guidelines, practical

tips, templates, action plans, and suggestions for strategic planning teams as well as for the sole

practitioner. Consolidating the sage advice and up-to-date research of 29 leaders in the field, this

comprehensive and highly practical guide takes the guesswork out of providing appropriate

services and programming for high-ability students from elementary through high school. Each

chapter addresses a key feature of gifted programming, from identification to evaluation and

advocacy. Smutny, J. F. (Ed.). (2003). Designing and developing programs for gifted students. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Abstract: The 13 readings in this book offer guidelines for designing and developing programs

for gifted students. An introductory chapter by the editor considers the benefits of special

programs for gifted students and the challenges of their development (Contains approximately

200 references.) (DB) (ERIC abstract) VanTassel-Baska, J. (1991). Gifted education in the balance: Building relationships with general

education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 20-25.

Abstract: Gifted education depends on two linkages in its program development efforts: the

special education linkage and the general education linkage. A closer working relationship with

general education is recommended, along with careful consideration of the curriculum reform

movement, basic research on teaching and learning, and effective schools research.

(Author/JDD) (ERIC abstract)


VanTassel-Baska, J. L. (Ed.). (2007). Serving gifted learners beyond the traditional classroom: A guide to alternative programs and services. Waco, TX: Prufrock.

Summary: Serving Gifted Learners Beyond the Traditional Classroom: A Guide to Alternative

Programs and Services

provides a concise and thorough introduction to the various types of out-of-school programming

recommended and

appropriate for gifted and advanced learners. Including overviews of mentoring programs,

residential schools,

summer opportunities, and distance learning, top scholars in the field of gifted education combine

research and

experience in this guide to alternative services for teachers, parents, and gifted education

program directors. Other

programs and services covered include service learning, university-based programs, and

competitions. In addition, a

much-needed review of the issues concerning programming for diverse youth, options for

students from low-income

backgrounds, and counseling gifted students to make good out-of-school choices, along with an

insightful, insider’s

look at the culture and lives of gifted students at residential schools, make this handy guide to

alternative programs

and services a necessity for anyone serving and working with gifted students. (Summary from

book)


Dansinger, S. (1998). Integrating gifted and special education services in the schools. Gifted Child Today, 21(3), 38-41.

Abstract: Examines issues in the provision of comprehensive services to students who are both

gifted and disabled, especially learning disabled. It urges a closer working relationship among the

department of gifted education, the department of special education, and parents, and the

development of an individual learning plan for each student. (DB) (ERIC abstract)


CEC Knowledge/Skills Evidence-Base Report Standard # GTS2S4:

Design and develop systematic program and curriculum models for enhancing talent development in multiple settings.

5. References:


VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D. T., Hughes, C., & Boyce, L. N. (1996). A study of language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 461-480.

Abstract: This study of language arts curriculum effectiveness presents data supporting utilization of the Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM) with high-ability learners in various grouping contexts. Significant gains were demonstrated in literary analysis, persuasive writing, and linguistic competency for seven elementary classes using the ICM. Implications for heterogeneous classrooms are discussed. (Author/PB)


Dettmer, P. (1993). Gifted education: Window of opportunity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 92-94. Abstract: This paper offers educators of gifted students 10 recommendations for encouraging

change in the context of the movement for educational restructuring and reform. These include

setting high learning standards and expectations for all students, structuring new roles for gifted

education personnel, and integrating gifted education with general education in meaningful ways.

(DB) (ERIC abstract)

Marsh, H. W., Seaton, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Hau, K. T., O’Mara, A. J., et al. (2008). The big-fish-little-pond-effect stands up to critical scrutiny: Implications for theory, methodology, and future research. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 319-350. Abstract: The big-fish-little-pond effect (BFLPE) predicts that equally able students have lower academic self-concepts (ASCs) when attending schools where the average ability levels of classmates is high, and higher ASCs when attending schools where the school-average ability is low. BFLPE findings are remarkably robust, generalizing over a wide variety of different individual student and contextual level characteristics, settings, countries, long-term follow-ups, and research designs. Because of the importance of ASC in predicting future achievement, coursework selection, and educational attainment, the results have important implications for the way in which schools are organized (e.g., tracking, ability grouping, academically selective schools, and gifted education programs). In response to Dai and Rinn (Educ. Psychol. Rev., 2008), we summarize the theoretical model underlying the BFLPE, minimal conditions for testing the BFLPE, support for its robust generalizability, its relation to social comparison theory, and recent research extending previous implications, demonstrating that the BFLPE stands up to scrutiny. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) (Abstract by author) VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). The development of academic talent: A mandate for educational

best practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 760-763. Abstract: University talent-search projects provide a viable model for schools' talent-development efforts. There are three critical elements: a flexible age-grade placement philosophy, a commitment to use tests to improve curriculum and instruction, and a strong


support structure for teachers and administrators. Students must also develop appropriate habits of mind. (28 references) (MLH) (ERIC abstract) VanTassel-Baska, J., & Feng, A. X. (Eds.). (2004). Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted

program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock. Summary: Based on accumulated evaluation experiences of gifted programs and empirical

evidence over a decade at the Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary, as well as major theories in the general evaluation field, Designing and Utilizing Evaluation for Gifted Program Improvement is intended to showcase evaluation as a central tool for program improvement and provide researchers and practitioners a guide on conducting both formative and summative evaluations of gifted programs at local, state, and international levels. Eight contributing writers explore basic issues in the gifted program evaluation process, present theoretical and methodological models, and provide specific strategies on how to conduct gifted program evaluations effectively using a combination of quantitative and qualitiative methods. Topics addressed include survey construction and implementation, use of focus groups, assessment of classroom practices, outcome/impact data assessment, alignment with best practice standards, evaluation knowledge utilization, problems in evaluation utilization, and strategies for synthesizing evaluation findings. In addition, the analysis of accumulated empirical data on gifted evaluations over a decade will give readers a general picture of gifted program services through the lens of both stakeholders and experts in the field. (Summary from book)


Tomlinson, C. A.. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 160-167.

Abstract: Curriculum and instruction for gifted learners should be a response to their learning capacities. Because gifted learners vary considerably as a population, there is no single formula or template for curriculum and instruction that will serve all of them well. In general, however, good curriculum and instruction for gifted learners begins with good curriculum and instruction--that is, curriculum and instruction that is meaning-making, rich, and high level. From that starting point, appropriate modifications for highly able learners typically involve adapting pacing, determining an appropriate degree of challenge, and providing supported opportunities to develop interests. Effective curriculum and instruction for gifted learners will respond to their individual readiness levels, interests, and modes of learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005).Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44 (3), 211-218. Abstract: This article addresses the major obstacles that impede educators in differentiating for gifted learners in the regular classroom. Specific discussion of the lack of subject matter knowledge, the lack of classroom management skills, teachers' attitudes and beliefs about learning, lack of knowledge for modifying the curriculum, issues regarding responding to diverse populations, difficulties of effective use and location of resources, lack of planning time, lack of administrative support, and lack of relevant pedagogical skills is provided. Strategies for recognizing and overcoming the obstacles are embedded within the discussion of each. Finally, important general considerations for facilitating the use of differentiation in classrooms are discussed, including the use of diagnostic-prescriptive learning, modulating teaching and learning expectations, and flexibility of curriculum and teacher beliefs surrounding student learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] VanTassel-Baska, J. & Brown, E. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of


curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 342-358. Abstract: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]


Analyze the current literature on evidence based practices for comprehensive curriculum and program development for individuals with gifts and talents.

6. References:


Henfield, M. S., Moore, J. L., & Wood, C. (2008). Inside and outside gifted education programming: Hidden challenges for African American students. Exceptional Children, 74, 433-450.

Abstract: This qualitative study used Critical Race Theory as a theoretical framework to examine the meaning, context, and process by which 12 African American students in gifted education programs formulated perceptions of their experiences in those programs. The following themes emerged from the semistructured, biographical questionnaires and individual interviews: (a) critical issues facing gifted African American students; (b) ways that the students navigate the perils of gifted education; and (c) the benefits of gifted education. These themes highlight the salience of race inside and outside gifted education programs. The research findings also provide practical applications for teachers, principals, school counselors, and parents. (Contains 1 table.) (Abstract by author) Matthews, D., & Kitchen, J. (2007). School-within-a-school gifted programs: Perceptions of

students and teachers in public secondary schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 256-271. Abstract: The authors conduct open-ended surveys of 530 students and teachers in three publicly funded schools with different approaches to providing a high-ability "school-within-a-school": a gifted program, an international baccalaureate program, and a high-ability program with a science focus. Overall, the authors find that teachers and students in all of these gifted programs express strong satisfaction with their academic programs. At the same time, however, all groups (students and teachers in gifted and regular programs at all three schools) express concerns about the relationship between the special gifted programs and the schools within which they are housed. Based on an analysis of stakeholders' concerns and suggestions in the contexts of the different schools' approaches to integration, suggestions are made for and questions are raised about fostering a positive school climate in secondary schools that offer programming for high-ability learners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]


Stahl, N. N., & Stahl, R. J. (1991). We can agree after all! Achieving consensus for a critical thinking component of a gifted program using the Delphi technique. Roeper Review, 14, 79-88.

Abstract: Definitions and lists of critical thinking abilities, along with guidelines for utilizing the Delphi Technique, are presented as a procedural model for districts searching for curriculum consensus. Results are reported for a study wherein 16 educators of gifted students used the Delphi Technique to reach consensus on criteria for a thinking skills program. (Author/JDD) (ERIC abstract)

Tyler-Wood, T. L., Mortenson, M., Putney, D., & Cass, M. A. (2000). An effective mathematics and science curriculum option for secondary gifted education. Roeper Review, 22, 266- 269. Abstract: For a two-year period, 32 secondary students gifted in the areas of mathematics and science participated in a curriculum which incorporated higher-level thinking skills and more real-life laboratory experiences into mutually reinforcing mathematics and science lessons. After the program, participants scored higher on mathematics and science aptitude tests than nonparticipants. (Contains references.) (Author/CR) VanTassel Baska, J. (Ed.). (2004). Curriculum for gifted and talented students. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Jointly published by Corwin Press and the National Association for Gifted Children. Seminal articles and research from Gifted Child Quarterly are compiled in one volume, including how to develop a scope and sequence for gifted, the multiple-menu model of serving gifted students, what effective curriculum for the gifted looks like, curriculum at the secondary level, and specific content area curricula options in math and science. VanTassel Baska, J., Zuo, L., Avery, L. D., & Little, C. A. (2002). A curriculum study of gifted-

student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 30-44. Abstract: A study investigated effects of particular units of study on gifted elementary and middle school learners (n=2,189). The use of an integrated literature and writing unit produced significant gains for gifted learners in key aspects of language arts as assessed by demonstration of high-level thinking on performance-based measures. (Contains references.) (CR) VanTassel Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. D. (1998). A national study of

science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200-211.

The purpose of this study was to assess student growth on integrated science process skills after being taught a 20 to 36-hour science unit called “Acid, Acid Everywhere.” The sample consisted of 1,471 gifted students from self-contained gifted, pull-out, heterogeneous with gifted clusters, and heterogeneous classrooms. Results indicated significant gains in science skills for gifted students who were involved in the science unit compared with the students who did not participate in the unit. The findings support the use of curriculum designed specifically for gifted students, in this case the science unit, to enhance understanding of a subject and develop integrated process skills. Vaughn, V. L., Feldhusen, J. F., & Asher, J. W. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on

pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 92-98. Abstract: A meta-analysis was conducted on nine experimental studies dealing with pull-out programs for gifted students in grades one through nine. Results indicate that pull-out programs in gifted education have significant positive effects on achievement, critical thinking, and creativity, but not on student self-concept. (Author/JDD) (ERIC abstract)



Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. (2000). A framework for infusing multicultural curriculum into gifted education. Roeper Review, 23, 4-10.

Abstract: This article offers a framework for infusing multicultural curriculum into gifted education that integrates two, heretofore, parallel models in education, Benjamin Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives (1956) and Banks and Banks' (1993) model of multicultural education. (Contains 15 references.) (DB) (ERIC abstract) Jolly, J. (2009). A resuscitation of gifted education. American Educational History Journal, 36, 37-52. Abstract: Since its inception in the 1920s, the field of gifted education has remained in a constant ebb and flow. Public understanding and support, as well as, federal aid has mirrored this pattern, waxing and waning in response to national interests and concern from private institutions and foundations. Discourse between excellence and equity also has created a tension regarding the education of gifted and talented students. Often mirroring the pendulum swing of society's priorities of "critical need to its elitist luxury" (Jolly and Kettler 2008, 427), gifted and talented students become a national priority when excellence is sought and a critical need is perceived. However, as equity becomes the predilection, gifted students' needs are seen as an elitist luxury and are replaced with the priorities of students within other subpopulations. The launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik and subsequent passage of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) is a central example of "a revival of concern ... to building better school programs for youngsters with outstanding ability" (Passow 1960, 141). Gifted education remains negligent in its retrospective examination of its own history. This article attempts to place in historical context the impact of the NDEA on gifted education by specifically examining the identification and conceptions of giftedness and talent, school programming, and professional development of teachers. (ERIC abstract) Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in gifted

education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 26-35. Abstract: Gifted education faces a quiet crisis as reform movements focus on cosmetic administrative changes in school organization and management rather than interaction among teachers, students, and the material to be learned. Two goals of American education are presented: providing the best possible education to promising students and improving the education of at-risk students. (JDD) (ERIC abstract) Treffinger, D. J. & Isaksen, S. G. (2005). Creative problem solving: The history, development, and

implications for gifted education and talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 342-353.

Abstract: This article presents a summary of research, development, and applications of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) in educational settings and, more specifically, in gifted education. The CPS framework is widely known and applied as one important goal in contemporary gifted education, as well as in relation to initiatives for "teaching thinking" in the broader context of general education. This article traces the history and evolution of the CPS framework through more than five decades of research, development, and practical application. We describe and discuss the specific changes in the model over time, as well as their rationale and foundations. We discuss the implications of changes within the CPS framework for teaching and learning; our purpose is not to compare or contrast CPS with other perspectives on creativity, from psychology, cognitive science, or management. Finally, we present implications of contemporary CPS for instruction and assessment in gifted education. (ERIC abstract)


VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 199-215.

Abstract: This article delineates the results of 7 gifted program evaluation studies conducted in 20 different school districts and places them in the context of major areas for gifted program improvement. The author suggests that the field of gifted education may be vulnerable to losing its infrastructure at local levels if enhanced program development in key areas does not occur over the next few years and if the studied districts are at all similar to the larger group. The paper discusses key areas of program development including identification, curriculum, program design, staff development, parental involvement assessment, and evaluation. The author contends that attention to these areas is essential for improving gifted program quality and stabilizing programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] (ACADEMIC SEARCH PREMIER abstract)


Gentry, M. (2009). Myth 11: A comprehensive continuum of gifted education and talent development services – Discovering, developing, and enhancing young people’s gifts and talents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 262-265.

Abstract: To determine whether having a program is sufficient one must first define what is meant by "program." If by program one refers to the pullout program in the elementary school, or the afterschool enrichment program in the middle school, or the Advanced Placement program in the high school, or the hockey program, then certainly having a "program" is not sufficient. If, however, one refers to a comprehensive set of responsive services spanning grade levels and subject areas, providing a variety of well-conceived opportunities to different students who have potential talent in many different domains, then such a program would not only be sufficient but could also serve as exemplar for others. Rather than simply identifying young people as gifted for placement in the "program," a variety of services must exist both to serve students whose strengths and talents are obvious and to develop strengths and talents among students whose talents remain hidden or undeveloped. This requires not only a continuum of services but also levels of services. In fact, the more services and the wider their variety, the more likely educators are to develop, recognize, and reach the talent and potential talents among the young people they are charged with educating. In 2001, the National Association for Gifted Children published annotated program standards, providing school personnel with guidelines for exemplary programs. In 1994, Renzulli proposed such a continuum, and recently this author and her colleagues updated and expanded it to include direct services for gifted students "and" services designed to discover and develop talent among a wider array of students at all levels. The author suggests that this continuum be viewed as an organizational guide, and services added as they are developed, identified, and studied. (Contains 1 table.) (ERIC abstract) Gentry, M., & Mann, R. L. (2008). Total school cluster grouping & differentiation: A

comprehensive, research-based plan for raising student achievement & improving teacher practices. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Summary: Total School Cluster Grouping is a specific form of cluster grouping that has a

research base, theoreticalrationale, and model for successful implementation in schools. Drs. Gentry and Mann detail how the Total School Cluster Grouping Model provides full-time services to high-achieving, high-ability elementary students, helps all students improve their academic achievement and educational self-efficacy, helps teachers more effectively and efficiently meet the diverse needs of their students, and weaves gifted education and talent development “know how” into the fabric of all educational practices in the school. In addition, Gentry and Mann present practical methods

for quickly and easily differentiating lessons and injecting challenge, interest, and student ideas


into classwork and projects. (Summary from book)


ACC3: Research and Inquiry

Standard # GTS3K1: 1. References


Jolly, J. L., & Kettler, T. (2008). Gifted education research 1994-2003: A disconnect between priorities and practice. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 427-446. The authors analyzed the growth of the knowledge base in gifted education following the U. S. Department of Education’s (1993) report, National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent. They related the areas of research to the National Excellence Report Research Recommendations. They found that the research focused on equity and social and psychological issues of gifted individuals whereas the report focused on achievement excellence. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77. Meta-analytic reviews have shown that gifted students gain little from programs of minimal instructional modification (multilevel classes), more from greater modifications (cross-grade and within-class programs) and the most from those involving the greatest amount of curricular adjustment (enrichment and acceleration). Robinson, A., Shore, B.M., & Enersen, D.L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Prufrock: Waco: TX. Through a panel of scholars and practitioners, the authors identified 31 practices or specific actions parents and educators could take to meet the needs of advanced learners. After reviewing the research literature, the authors combined two practices for a total of 29 practices with sufficient research to be considered evidence-based. Eight of the practices are primarily relevant to the home; 11 of them focus on the classroom; and 10, on the school. The result is a set of individual evidence-based practices grounded in empirical research and offering specific guidance to educators, parents, and policymakers on what works with talented youth. Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner: Research-based decision making series. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, Storrs, CT. Thirteen research syntheses were analyzed to determine the academic, social, and psychological effects upon learners who are gifted and talented of three grouping practices: (1) ability grouping for enrichment; (2) mixed ability cooperative grouping for regular instruction; and (3) grouping for acceleration. It was concluded that the research showed strong, consistent support for the academic effects of most forms of ability grouping for enrichment and

Evidence based practices validated for specific characteristics of individuals with gifts and talents


acceleration, but that the research is scant and weak concerning the socialization and psychological adjustment effects of these practices. Claims for the academic superiority of mixed ability grouping or for whole group instructional practices were not substantiated for gifted and talented learners. Other conclusions indicated that: academic outcomes of ability grouping vary substantially from effects reported for average and low ability learners; full time, pullout, and within-class grouping can all produce substantial academic gains; and there is little impact on self-esteem and a moderate gain in attitude toward subject in full time ability grouping. Shore, B. M., & Delcourt, M. A. (1996). Effective curricular and program practices in gifted education and the interface with general education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 138-154. This article describes the results of a review of recommended practices in gifted education. The authors identify 5 practices that are uniquely appropriate to gifted education and receive strong research support: acceleration; career education, especially for girls; ability grouping; high-level curricular materials; and program arrangements such as pull-out, separate class, special school programs, and cluster grouping in mathematics. The authors identify 8 practices that need further research to confirm that they are uniquely appropriate for gifted students. They identify 13 practices effective with gifted students but generally applicable to all students such as enrichment, creative abilities, problem solving, individual programming, mentor or apprenticeship programs. They identify 13 practices that have insufficient evidence to make a case for their uniqueness for gifted students such as multidisciplinary curriculum, thinking skills, in-depth investigation of subject matter. They conclude that solid evidence exists to support a core of practices that appears to enhance the affective and cognitive growth of very able children and another group of practices that they can share with general education. Vaughn, V. L., Feldhusen, J. F., & Asher, J. W. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 92-98. This meta-analysis reviewed none studies of pull-out programs for gifted students in grades one through nine. They concluded that there were significant, positive effects on achievement, critical thinking, and creativity, but not self concept.


Asher, W. (2003). Meta-analysis and gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 7-19. The author reviews the meta-analysis method in gifted education and suggests that these studies provide the best evidence for forming a theory of gifted and talented instruction. He concludes that the generalizability of the result of meta-analysis is greater than any single study. Bickman, L., & Rog, D. J. (Eds.)(1998). Handbook of applied research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. This book is a resource that discusses how to plan applied research, design a qualitative study, conduct quasiexperimental studies, and use a variety of data-collection strategies such as surveys, interviews, ethnography and so on. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. & Gross, M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II). Iowa City, IA: Belin & Blank International Center for Gifted


Education and Talent Development. Interviewed years later, an overwhelming majority of accelerated students say that acceleration was an excellent experience for them. They feel academically challenged and socially accepted, and they do not fall prey to the boredom that plagues many highly capable students who are forced to follow the curriculum for their age-peers. In spite of rich research evidence, schools, parents, and teachers have not accepted the idea of acceleration? A Nation Deceived presents the reasons for why schools hold back America’s brightest kids, and shows that these reasons are simply not supported by research. Dana, N. F., & Hoppey, D. Y. (2009). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. This book guides the practitioner in implementing action research in the classroom. The teacher learns how to identify a question/wondering, use a systematic method, analyze the data, interpret the results, and share findings. Mendaglio, S. (2003). Qualitative case study in gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 163-183. This article describes differences between quantitative and qualitative case study, assumptions, and plans. The researcher then compares an array of case study articles that have investigated areas in gifted education. Using one of these studies, he provides the reader with criteria for evaluating case study methodology. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3

rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE. This book provides information on a variety of qualitative designs and methods for collecting data including phenomenology, ethnomethodology, ecology, grounded theory, field work, observations, and so on.


Stronge, J. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. ASCD. Alexandria, VA. Based on a synthesis of research on highly effective teachers, Stronge found that the most effective educators must show efficacy of content knowledge in the fields they teach as well as a variety of pedagogical strategies. Additionally, rather than look at outside factors like demographics, district leadership, and state mandates, Stronge focuses specifically on what teachers can control: their own preparation, personality, and practices. This book shares how effective teachers establish, manage, and maintain learning-focused classroom environments, organize time, communicate expectations, and plan instruction, present curriculum to support active and engaged learning, and monitor student


Identify and use the research literature and professional standards to resolve issues of professional practice.


2. References:


Bain, S., Bourgeois, S., & Pappas, D. (2003). Linking theoretical models to actual practices: A survey of teachers in gifted education. Roeper Review, 25, 166-172. This article reports results of a regional survey that focused on topics not typically covered in surveys of gifted programs. The teachers were familiar with program models and concepts but they could not identify the models and concepts underlying their programs. The evidence from this survey supports the need fro training of gifted teachers that goes beyond a basic 30 hour overview. Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 115-123. This study of 82 teachers of gifted students showed that teachers trained in gifted education demonstrated greater teaching skills and developed more positive classroom climates than did teachers who had no training in gifted education. Students of trained teachers reported greater emphasis on higher level thinking skills and on discussion and less emphasis on lecture and grades.


Harris, A. (1998). Effective teaching: A review of the literature. School Leadership and Management, 18(2), 169-183. Reviews research on pedagogical, managerial, and organizational aspects of effective teaching, highlighting teaching effects, models, and artistry. Effective teaching depends highly on the nature of educational outcomes and goals; requires central qualities, skills, and behaviors; demands an extensive repertoire of teaching styles; and is linked to reflection, enquiry, and continuous professional development.


Gubbins, E. J., Westberg, K. L., Reis, S. M., Dinnocenti, S. T., Tieso, C. L., & Muller, L. M., et al. (2002). Implementing a professional development model using gifted education strategies with all students. (Report RM02172). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. This report presents findings of a 5-year study on using professional development to extend gifted education pedagogy to regular education programs. Findings indicate that professional development opportunities must respond to an identified need, apply knowledge and experiences, requires time for reflection, and should include observation of master teachers,


collegial coaching, and demonstration of instructional practices. Kane, J., & Henning, J. E. (2004). A case study of the collaboration in mathematics between a fourth-grade teacher and a talented and gifted coordinator. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 243-266. This case study described the collaboration between a 4

th grade teacher and a TAG coordinator

to improve services for advanced learners. Multiple data collection approaches showed hat the researchers co-planned lessons, used collaborative teaching and developed a close rapport. Indirect service provides more opportunity for communication than pull-out models. Barriers to communication included time, space, and class assignment.



Standard # GTS3S2:

3. References


Koshy, V., & Welham, C. (2008). Nurturing young gifted and children: Teachers generating knowledge. Perspectives in Education, 26(2). 67-79. This article presents the findings of a set of Action Research projects carried out by practitioners in 14 Local Education Districts in collaboration with a team of university tutors over a period of three years. The aim of the project was to explore ways of nurturing the gifts and talents of children aged 4-7 years. The project helped to develop teachers’ understanding of both the identification of and provision for gifted and talented younger children. It also highlighted that action research offered a suitable methodology for teacher-researchers to explore the complexity of the topic of giftedness through cycles of planning, action, and reflection (Author Abstract).


Guskey, T. (1998, April). Teacher efficacy measurement and change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED422396). Teacher efficacy is defined as teacher's belief or conviction that they can influence how well students learn (T. Guskey and P. Passaro, 1994). Efforts to clarify the definition of teacher efficacy are sometimes clouded by similar or related constructs. It is suggested that the only major difference between perceptions of efficacy and responsibility is in the tense of the items used in the measure, with efficacy representing projected potency and responsibility being an attribute directed toward the past. From the earliest research, teacher efficacy has been considered to have two dimensions: internal, the extent that teachers believe that they, and other teachers, have the influence and impact on student learning; and external, a dimension that measures teachers' perceptions of the influence and control of factors outside the classroom. Kirschenbaum, R. J. (2004). Dynamic assessment and its use with underserved gifted and talented populations. In A. Baldwin, & S. Reis (Eds.). (2004). Culturally diverse and underserved populations of gifted students. Essential reading in gifted education. (pp. 49-62). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Corwin Press, Inc. This reprinted article originally appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly, 1998, 42, 140-147. A relatively new, nontraditional approach to assessing cognitive ability is to instruct students on how to perform on certain tasks and then measure their progress in learning to solve similar problems. This approach, called dynamic assessment, usually consists of a test-intervene-retest format that focuses attention on the improvement in student performance when an adult

Evaluate and modify instructional practices in response to ongoing assessment data.


provides mediated assistance on how to master the testing task. The dynamic assessment approach can provide a means for assessing disadvantaged, disabled, or limited English proficiency students who have not demonstrated high ability on traditional tests of intelligence and creativity. Dynamic assessment methods should be considered by school districts with large numbers of disadvantaged students that are dissatisfied with the effectiveness of traditional methods for identifying students for specialized enrichment programs.


Hughes, L. (1999). Action research and practical inquiry: How can I meet the needs of the high-ability student within my regular education classroom? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 282-297. Using data collected from student questionnaires, parent interviews, classroom observations, and teacher-student portfolio conferences, this fourth grade teacher-identified activities for her high-ability students: differentiated instruction, student choice, flexible groupings, and mixed enrichment with acceleration. The teacher reported that using these strategies, students were not doing the same thing, were not “stuck” in the same group all year, were able to make choices that matched their interests and abilities, enjoyed enrichment and acceleration, and reported a positive classroom atmosphere. Jatko, B. P. (1995). Action research and practical inquiry: Using a whole class tryout procedure for identifying economically disadvantaged students in three socioeconomically diverse schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 83-105. The article conducted research that aimed at addressing the identification and selection of economically disadvantaged gifted students for participation in the TAG Future Problem Solving program. An action research, whole-classroom approach was used to evaluate fourth grade students at three elementary schools (one affluent community, one lower-middle income community, and one extremely low income community) who had no previous experience with the Future Problem Solving program. Data were collected on student teams in the program to chart progress for each individual team, compare team performances from all schools, and compare the teams as a competitive sample. The author reflects that using the whole classroom tryout technique allowed her to observe and include gifted children in the program who otherwise would not have been recognized and would not have had access to the TAG program.


Standard # GTS3S3:

4. References:


Gentry, M., & Owen, S. V. (1999). An investigation of the effects of total school flexible cluster

Use educational research to improve instruction, intervention strategies, and curricular materials.


grouping on identification, achievement, and classroom practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43,

224-243. The study examined the use of cluster grouping during a four-year period in a small, rural school district. The comparison sample involved students who had not been involved in cluster grouping in a demographically similar school. While the students in the treatment schools outperformed the comparison groups in reading and math. In addition, teachers created challenge through integrating high order thinking skills, developing critical thinking skills, using creative thinking skills, integrating problem solving, assigning projects, using acceleration, and adjusting assignments. Friedman, R. C., & Lee, S. W. (1996). Differentiating instruction for high-achieving/gifted children in regular classrooms: A field test of three gifted-education models. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 405-436. This study examined three instructional models: the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli & Reis, 1986), the Multiple Talent Model (Taylor, 1986), and the Cognitive-Affective Interaction Model (Williams, 1986). These models were field-tested in inclusive, general-education classrooms in rural, low-income, and/or ethnically diverse communities. The researchers analyzed how certain elements of the model affected the cognitive complexity of the classroom and student involvement. Using a multiple-baseline-across-settings design, the researchers interviewed and observed the participants. They found that a strong positive relationship existed between teacher questions and student responses. The interaction model demonstrated the greatest gains in student higher cognitive skill levels. Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J. M., & Purcell, J. H. (1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 123-129. This study examined the effects of curriculum compacting on achievement test scores of over 300 American gifted elementary students. Teachers from 3 treatment and 3 control groups used curriculum compacting to replace mastered material with more appropriate learning activities. The Classroom Practices Questionnaire and the Compactor Form assessed teachers’ practices. Pre and post student achievement was assessed by the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. While no significant differences were found in student performance on the ITBS between experimental and control groups, the authors noted that the scores did not decline even when 40 to 50% of the content was compacted.


Avery, L. D. & Zuo, L. (2003). Selecting resources and materials for high-ability learners. In J. VanTassel-Baska & C. A. Little (Eds.). Content-based curriculum for high ability learners (pp.259-278). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. This chapter provides specific selection criteria for determining resources for gifted students and also lists suggested curriculum or supplemental resources in each content area that could be utilized by educators working with gifted learners. Harris, A. (1998). Effective teaching: A review of the literature. School Leadership and Management, 18(2), 169-183. Reviews research on pedagogical, managerial, and organizational aspects of effective teaching,


highlighting teaching effects, models, and artistry. Effective teaching depends highly on the nature of educational outcomes and goals; requires central qualities, skills, and behaviors; demands an extensive repertoire of teaching styles; and is linked to reflection, enquiry, and continuous professional development. Kirschenbaum, R. J. (2004). Dynamic assessment and its use with underserved gifted and talented populations. In A. Baldwin, & S. Reis (Eds.). (2004). Culturally diverse and underserved populations of gifted students. Essential reading in gifted education. (pp. 49-62). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Corwin Press, Inc. This reprinted article originally appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly, 1998, 42, 140-147. A relatively new, nontraditional approach to assessing cognitive ability is to instruct students on how to perform on certain tasks and then measure their progress in learning to solve similar problems. This approach, called dynamic assessment, usually consists of a test-intervene-retest format that focuses attention on the improvement in student performance when an adult provides mediated assistance on how to master the testing task. The dynamic assessment approach can provide a means for assessing disadvantaged, disabled, or limited English proficiency students who have not demonstrated high ability on traditional tests of intelligence and creativity. Dynamic assessment methods should be considered by school districts with large numbers of disadvantaged students that are dissatisfied with the effectiveness of traditional methods for identifying students for specialized enrichment programs. Purcell, J.H., Burns, D.E., Tomlinson, C.A., Imbeau, M.B., & Martin, J.L. (2002). Bridging the gap: A tool and technique to analyze and evaluate gifted education curricular units. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 306-338. Research on the quality of educational standards, our knowledge about the quality of textbooks, and the performance of high-achieving students on international assessments all point to the need for exemplary curricula for gifted and talented young people. The gap between research in these areas and the needs of gifted and talented learners is startlingly clear. This article includes information about the development of a rubric that was originally designed to assess the quality of curricular units that are submitted annually to the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Curriculum Division's Curriculum Competition. The article also includes information about 4 different, but related, uses for the rubric. Ultimately, we hope that the use of this tool and assessment technique by practitioners across the country will begin to close the enormous gap between the learning needs of gifted and talented young people and curricula. Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Action research and practical inquiry: An overview and an invitation to teachers of gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 467-484.


Joffe, W. S. (2001). Investigating the acquisition of pedagogical knowledge: Interviews with a beginning teacher of the gifted. Roeper Review, 23, 219-225. The researcher wanted to examine how a fifth grade novice teacher’s knowledge of gifted learners’ characteristics and educational requirements and other knowledge gained through observation assists a beginning teacher of the gifted in developing specially adapted pedagogy. Using a case study, Joffe gathered data through semi-structured interviews that focused on previous observations, instructional strategies, curricular decisions, the learning environment, and interactions. In terms of instructional practices, the teacher reported that gifted students


were more likely to ask questions and ask for support from each other than go to the teacher. She also reported more intense parent involvement and faster pacing in a classroom for gifted. Successful instructional strategies included different expectations, flexible grouping, choices, and reading for comprehension. She described the learning environment as learner-centered, allowing for independence, open, accepting, complex, flexible, and with varied groupings. The novice teacher made decisions based on her use of resources, discovering students’ instructional levels, a trial and error approach to instructional strategies, balancing the whole class with individual student needs, being an astute observer, being flexible, and her intuition. Kitano, M. K., & Pedersen, K. S. (2002). Action research and practical inquiry: Multicultural content integration in gifted education: Lessons from the field. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 269-289. The researchers examined how teachers perceived (a) their multicultural goals for their gifted students, (b) obstacles in addressing multicultural content, (c) how gifted students had responded to their multicultural goals, and (d) benefits and challenges of multicultural education. A total of 27 elementary, 44 middle and high school teachers responded to a one-page survey, a 47 percent response rate. Most of the respondents (77.5%) were teaching gifted students. The most frequently mentioned goals were valuing diversity, contributions of diverse groups, and addressing issues of prejudice, racism, discrimination, and stereotyping. The primary obstacles cited to multicultural education were relevance to district-mandated standards and/or exams and lack of materials. The majority reported that students reacted positively. Following the survey, the researchers gathered implementation information through observations, written reports, and videotapes. They reported that teachers routinely used a variety of fiction and nonfiction literature and art produced by or about people from a variety of cultures; incorporated the history of diverse groups and contemporary social issues; addressed diverse perspectives through curriculum compacting, Socratic questioning, and offering opportunities to pursue their interests; examined how knowledge is constructed; and designed culminating activities that engage students in social change. Unsuccessful activities didn’t include the student readiness for multicultural activities, were presented in isolation, and need to provide a healthy emotional distance. Kitano, M. K., & Pedersen, K. S. (2002). Action research and practical inquiry: Teaching gifted English learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 123-147. This study examined practitioner knowledge about serving gifted English learners. Twenty-four teachers were sent an invitation to participate based on these criteria: certified in gifted education, located at various sites around the district, worked with students representing a variety of primary languages, and they themselves representing diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Twelve volunteered. Of these, 9 were women and 3 men; 8 were White, 3 Latino and 1 Filipino. Four taught seminars for students identified as highly gifted and the other eight had “cluster” classroom assignments. The researchers conducted focus groups with the teachers to learn what characteristics and needs of gifted English learners and the goals, strategies, and curriculum that they found most effective for them. Participants characterized English learners as enthusiastic, high level thinkers who have difficulty expressing their ideas in English and recommended strategies consistent with the literature on best practices. These practices included assessment of children’s interests and background knowledge, showing rather than telling students, conferencing with children individually, employing reciprocal teaching and literature circles, modeling reading and thinking strategies, using direct instruction to teach basic skills and helping children develop automaticity, using strategies that promote higher level and creative thinking, tiering instruction, and creating and referring to schema journals. In their conclusion, the authors added two effective strategies that the teachers didn’t mention: frequent, systematic informal data collection to assess progress and the distinction between language/literacy development and content acquisition. Riley, T.R. (2005). Teaching on a shoestring: Materials for teaching gifted and talented students.


In F. Karnes & S. Bean (Eds.) Methods and materials for teaching the gifted. (2nd

ed., pp. 657-700).Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. This chapter outlines why differentiation is important and provides educators with how to decide on materials that are differentiated for gifted learners, including for selection, how to search for materials, how to find free and inexpensive materials, and a list of teacher resources, publishing companies, and websites that will assist them with differentiation


Standard # GTS3S4:

4. References:


Jatko, B. P. (1995). Action research and practical inquiry: Using a whole class tryout procedure for identifying economically disadvantaged students in three socioeconomically diverse schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 83-105. This author, a teacher for an inner-city talented and gifted (TAG) program, was concerned that gifted economically disadvantaged children were being overlooked. As a result, she conducted research that aimed at addressing the identification and selection of economically disadvantaged gifted students for participation in the TAG Future Problem Solving program. An action research, whole-classroom approach was used to evaluate fourth grade students at three elementary schools (one affluent community, one lower-middle income community, and one extremely low income community) who had no previous experience with the Future Problem Solving program. Data were collected on student teams in the program to chart progress for each individual team, compare team performances from all schools, and compare the teams as a competitive sample. The author reflects that using the whole classroom tryout technique allowed her to observe and include gifted children in the program who otherwise would not have been recognized and would not have had access to the TAG program. In conclusion, the author states that this technique can be an effective tool for educators in increasing the number of economically disadvantaged children in a TAG program, but ultimately, the students are the major beneficiaries of the services. Kitano, M. K., & Pedersen, K. S. (2002a). Action research and practical inquiry: Multicultural-content integration in gifted education: Lessons from the field. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 269-289. The researchers examined how teachers perceived (a) their multicultural goals for their gifted students, (b) obstacles in addressing multicultural content, (c) how gifted students had responded to their multicultural goals, and (d) benefits and challenges of multicultural education. A total of 27 elementary, 44 middle and high school teachers responded to a one-page survey, a 47 percent response rate. Most of the respondents (77.5%) were teaching gifted students. The most frequently mentioned goals were valuing diversity, contributions of diverse groups, and addressing issues of prejudice, racism, discrimination, and stereotyping. The primary obstacles

Plan, conduct, and disseminate research to inform practice in education of individuals with gifts and talents.


cited to multicultural education were relevance to district-mandated standards and/or exams and lack of materials. The majority reported that students reacted positively. Following the survey, the researchers gathered implementation information through observations, written reports, and videotapes. They reported that teachers routinely used a variety of fiction and nonfiction literature and art produced by or about people from a variety of cultures; incorporated the history of diverse groups and contemporary social issues; addressed diverse perspectives through curriculum compacting, Socratic questioning, and offering opportunities to pursue their interests; examined how knowledge is constructed; and designed culminating activities that engage students in social change. Unsuccessful activities didn’t include the student readiness for multicultural activities, were presented in isolation, and need to provide a healthy emotional distance. Kitano, M. K., & Pedersen, K. S. (2002b). Action research and practical inquiry: Teaching gifted English learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 132-147. This study examined practitioner knowledge about serving gifted English learners. Twenty-four teachers were sent an invitation to participate based on these criteria: certified in gifted education, located at various sites around the district, worked with students representing a variety of primary languages, and they themselves representing diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Twelve volunteered. Of these, 9 were women and 3 men; 8 were White, 3 Latino and 1 Filipino. Four taught seminars for students identified as highly gifted and the other eight had “cluster” classroom assignments. The researchers conducted focus groups with the teachers to learn what characteristics and needs of gifted English learners and the goals, strategies, and curriculum that they found most effective for them. Participants characterized English learners as enthusiastic, high level thinkers who have difficulty expressing their ideas in English and recommended strategies consistent with the literature on best practices. These practices included assessment of children’s interests and background knowledge, showing rather than telling students, conferencing with children individually, employing reciprocal teaching and literature circles, modeling reading and thinking strategies, using direct instruction to teach basic skills and helping children develop automaticity, using strategies that promote higher level and creative thinking, tiering instruction, and creating and referring to schema journals. In their conclusion, the authors added two effective strategies that the teachers didn’t mention: frequent, systematic informal data collection to assess progress and the distinction between language/literacy development and content acquisition.


Buchanan, N. K., & Feldhusen, J. F. (Eds.)(1991). Conducting research and evaluation in gifted education: A handbook of methods and applications. New York: Teachers College Press. Designed specifically for gifted education professionals, this text examines research methodology and evaluation of gifted education. Topics covered include creating informal evaluation instruments and making sense of data




ACC4: Evaluation and Program Evaluation

Standard # GTS4S2:

Design and use methods for assessing and evaluating gifted and talented education programs.

7. References:


Hunsaker, S. (2000). Documenting gifted program results for key decision-makers. Roeper

Review, 23(2), 80-82. Providing guidance for evaluation purposes, this article outlines three issues that must be addressed for decision-makers, including 1) being clear on intentions and purposes of the evaluation, being considerate of decision makers’ needs, and 3) providing useful, applicable information. Three levels of data, including: 1) whether the basic education that children are receiving is sound, 2) whether the education in the district is aiming for “excellence” for all students, and 3) whether the education children are receiving can be considered “gifted”. Each of these data points indicate possible actions and should all be conducted as ethically as possible. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted

programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 199-215.

This article meta-analyzes the results of 7 gifted program students across 20 different school districts. Overall concerns noted by the author indicated that there is a serious and significant need for enhanced program development and that many gifted programs are at risk for losing their infrastructure. Key program development needs were observed in numerous areas, including identification, curriculum, program design, staff development, parental involvement assessment, and evaluation planning. If gifted education programs are to stabilize, such areas must be addressed, and the accountability for program quality must become paramount to administrators, teachers and parents.


Buchanan, N. & Feldhusen, J. F. (Eds) (1991). Conducting research and evaluation in gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.

A seminal work, this book, in three short chapters, outlines the role of instruments in evaluation of programs, from the use of locally-designed instruments to the role of standardized instruments. Published before the strong use of national and state tests, the text discusses the aspects to be examined, including the initial status of learners, learner performances after implementation of a gifted program, execution and fidelity of the implementation of the program, programmatic costs and supplementary program information. Callahan, C. M. (Ed.) (2004). Essential readings in gifted education: Program evaluation in gifted

education (Vol. 11). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press and the National Association for


Gifted Children. This reference book offers guidance in the development and use of instruments to be used in the assessment of gifted and talented programs. The text outlines major theories, guidelines and models of evaluation. Included are sections on asking the right questions, the relationship between evaluation and professional development for educators, the use of exemplars for anchoring instruction, the inclusion of creativity as a component of gifted programming, discussion of the value that qualitative assessment can provide to an overview of a district, and case studies of several actual district evaluations. Callahan, C. M. & Caldwell, M. S. (1997). A practitioner’s guide to evaluating programs for the

gifted. Washington, DC; National Association for Gifted Children This text is an overview of assessment and evaluation processes for gifted education. It discusses how the design of the evaluation program is directly related to the programming that is offered to children, how instruments should be constructed and selected, and how data should be gathered, evaluated and used for accountability purposes. There are sample questions and evaluation narratives that act as exemplars and models. Gubbins, E. Jean,(1998) : NRC/GT's Suggestions: Evaluating Your Programs and Services.

National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, Storrs, CT. This overview of evaluation processes focuses on the reason and purpose of a gifted education program. Promoting both an internal and an external evaluation of programming, the article provides guidelines for convening stakeholders and key questions to ask regarding the foundational purposes of the program. Once those questions are addressed and mission components are in place, a set of questions will result. These questions organize around several important areas of focus, including a focus on students, curriculum, program implementation and service delivery models, and vary from an examination of fidelity to short and long-term effects.


Avery, L., & VanTassel-Baska J. (2001) Investigating the impact of gifted education evaluation at state and local levels: Problems with traction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25 (2), 153-176

The article highlights results from two gifted program evaluations conducted by external evaluators. The paucity of literature from such evaluations is cited as a concern. Across both evaluations were similar issues and concerns with were the absence of data on students learning, the fragmentation of service models across the K-12 expanse, the lack of systemic staff-development strategies, and the lack of meaningful parent involvement. In addition, although both systems developed plans for improving gifted education services, both systems were stymied in their resources to implement such improvements. Barriers to the implementation included insufficient resource bases and complex administrative and leadership issues due to major needs in numerous areas of the district. Avery, L, VanTassel-Baska, J., & O'Neill, B (1997). Making evaluation work: One school

district's model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41: 28-37. Providing a case study of the evaluation of the gifted education program of Greenwich, CT, this article describes the mixed methodology instruments of focus groups, observations, interviews, questionnaires and surveys. Findings are shared and the alignment between the findings, recommendations and resultant programmatic changes is made. The usefulness of information


is shared and lessons learned regarding the process. Bohm, D. (2000). Gifted program evaluation in progress. NRC/GT Newsletter, Fall, 9-12. This article outlined the calendar that a small school district adopted when conducting an internal informal evaluation over the course of a school year. The article delineates key tasks by months, beginning with an examination of the identification processes in September, and ending with the results of implementation of a new identification process in May. Along the way, results from stakeholders and key schools was shared. VanTassel-Baska, J., Leonhard, P., Glenn, C. B., Poland, D., Brown, E.F., & Johnson, D.

(1998). Curriculum review as a catalyst for gifted education reform at the secondary level. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10 (4), 173-83

Given the history of gifted education with specialized secondary schools, this article discusses the process that a curriculum review had upon improving services to gifted secondary students in a specialized high school. The article delineates the manner in which document reviews, interviews, focus groups and classroom observations led directly to a set of recommendations and a plan of action for the school.


Review and select psychometrically sound, nonbiased, qualitative and quantitative instruments to assess abilities, strengths, and interests of individuals with gifts and talents.

8. References:


Borland, J. H. (1994). Identifying and educating young economically disadvantaged urban children: The lessons of Project Synergy. In N. Coleangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambrose (Eds.). Talent development: Proceedings of the second biennial Wallace Conference on Talent Development (pp. 151-172). Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press.

This chapter describes Project Synergy, a federally funded Javits project at Columbia University to identify economically disadvantaged, potentially gifted kindergarten students in urban schools. Recommendations included using site-appropriate methods, observation, dynamic assessment, and the concept of best performance for greater validity with urban, impoverished children. The project suggested that there be a deemphasized use of standardized tests because of their tendency to identify children from upper socio-economic levels. Burks, B. S., Jensen, D. W., & Terman, L. M. (1930). The promise of youth: Follow up studies of

a thousand gifted children: Genetic studies of genius, Vol. 3. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

The third in the seminal longitudinal study of identified gifted children, this book compares test scores with future production efforts of the same children and finds that there is a relationship between test scores and future quality of output, mediated by significant factors. The value of intelligence measurement as a means of identifying gifted children as a means of predicting future quality of work is defended and explained.


Hunsaker, S. S.L. Finley, V. S. & Frank, E. L. (1997). An analysis of teacher nominations and

student performance in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 19-24. This study examined two measures for teacher nominations: one that was designed to assess designed specifically to assess gifted behaviors of students

from culturally divergent and/or low

income populations and an instrument designed to assess gifted behaviors in the general

population. Correlational analyses between the two measures and a gifted teacher rating of student performance found a significant relationship. There were significant relationships between the strengths observed by the general education teachers and later performance observed by the gifted education teacher, strengthening the validity of the nomination scales. Relationships in particular were found between thinking

abilities, general gifted behaviors, and

special learning skills to later performance on creativity, group skills,

and language abilities.

Naglieri, J.A., Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children

using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47 (2), 155-160. There is a significant concern that children from minority and impoverished backgrounds are under-represented in gifted programs. This study examined the effectiveness of the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) in identifying black and Hispanic students as gifted in a total population of 20,270 students (K-12). When examining the 95

th percentile of scores, the analysis

indicated that similar percentages of white (5.6%), black (5.1%), and Hispanic (4.4%) children were represented in the top 5%. Lohman, D. F., Korb, K.A., & Lakin, J. M. (2008). Identifying academically gifted English-

Language Learners using nonverbal tests. Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 4, 275-296 Three non-verbal tests were compared for validity purposes in their use for identifying gifted students from English Language Learners. The participants were 1,198 students, 40% of whom were ELLs. They were all given the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven), the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT), and Form 6 of the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT). Results indicated that the Raven and the NNAT overestimated the number of high-scoring children; while the NNAT also overestimated the number of low-scoring children; primary-level ELL children scored especially low on the NNAT; and that ELL children scored 0.5 to 0.67 standard deviations lower than non-ELL children on the three nonverbal tests. The authors concluded that despite the claims of being “nonverbal”, none of the nonverbal tests predict achievement for ELL students very well.


Frasier, M. M., Garcia, J. H., & Passow, A. H. (1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted education and their implications for identifying gifted minority students. (Report No. RM95204). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

The report examined the historical under-representation of minority, ELL and low-socioeconomic children in identified gifted populations. In addition to historical, cultural and political issues that impact gifted identification, three issues in assessment were identified, including: test bias of standardized tests, selective referrals of teachers who limited awareness of minority student needs, and a school-based focus on deficits, rather than a strengths-based approach to education. The report ended with a call for future research to examine the nature of giftedness, the impact of teacher training in the characteristics of students from diverse backgrounds, and the need for future programs and curriculum that maximizes talent.


Reynolds, C. R. & Kaiser, S. M. (1990). Bias in assessment of aptitude. In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.) Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Intelligence and achievement (pp. 611-653). New York: Guilford.

There is a great deal of perception that standardized measures of intelligence are biased against students from poverty and minority backgrounds. In this analysis of the literature, Reynolds and Kaiser found that while there was some issues with the purposes for which tests are administered, when specific analyses of the more typical intelligence measures were analyzed, there was little to no bias evident at the individual level. In addition, measures of aptitude were highly predictive of future success. While there are clearly group differences, it cannot be said that aptitude measures are biased at the individual level. Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enersen, D. L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An

evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. This overview of practices supported by research includes the use of multiple assessments for identification purposes. In the review, there is note that the use of standardized tests are considered by many to be biased, but many analysts find that the aptitude measures do, in fact, predict future success. Thus, while intelligence testing can provide very valuable information, there should be an effort to include other measures as well, such as alternative assessments and a focus on student need, rather than student admission. Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.) (2005). Conceptions of giftedness, 2

nd ed. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press. This review of literature, with inclusion of numerous authors, explores many of the major definitions of giftedness, from the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), defined through performance on the SAT in the 7

th grade, to Francoys Gagne’s Differentiated Model of

Giftedness and Talent, to Renzulli’s Three-Ring definition of giftedness, the book explores various means of identifying children and the measures used for assessment purposes. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2008). An overview of alternative assessment measures for gifted

learners and the issues that surround their use. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.). Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 1-15). Washington, DC: National Association of Gifted Children

This book provides an overview of many alternative forms of assessment beyond traditional IQ tests that are often used to identify gifted students, particularly from poverty and minority backgrounds. Such assessments include: Nonverbal testing; off-level testing; performance-based assessments; product assessments, and traditional assessments, including aptitude testing. Throughout the book, there is an emphasis on using measure that are valid and reliable for the purposes for which they’re used, rather than misusing or misrepresenting what tests do and do not.


Olszewski-Kubilius, P. & Kulieke, M. (2008). Using off-level testing and assessment for gifted and talented students. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.). Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 89-106). Washington, DC: National Association of Gifted Children.

Focusing on the Talent Search model, this chapter describes how a group of universities across the country have collaborated to identify students as high ability by using the SAT and other off-level tests with children. By providing off-level testing, students who otherwise would have hit a


ceiling on measures, have an opportunity to compare their knowledge to older students. Such a practice allows the Talent Search program to identify the students with talent that can be then be developed in the areas of math and language arts. Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. M. (1986). The Enrichment Triad/ Revolving Door Model: A schoolwide

plan for the development of creative productivity. In J. S. Renzulli (ed.) Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 215-266). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.

The Enrichment Triad/ Revolving Door Model is a process of total school engagement in a process of education that allows students to revolve in and out of advanced programming as their needs demand. It allows for school flexibility of offerings based on local resources, student demographics and faculty abilities. Students are identified through multiple measures, including achievement tests, IQ tests, teacher nominations and assessment of potential for creativity. The three elements of above average intelligence, creativity, and motivation are all considered independently and in conjunction with each other for admission into the Talent Pool. Zorman, Rachel. (1997). Eureka: The cross-cultural model for identification of hidden talents

through enrichment. Roeper Review, 20 (1), 54-61. Based in Israel, the Eureka model for identification of giftedness uses teacher identification, evaluation of portfolios and task performance activities as the measures for the admission to the program. The study examined the outcomes of students in 6 elementary schools nationwide who were followed over seven years. Such identification processes appear to predict success, particularly in visual arts and sciences.


Standard # GTS4S5:

Interpret data from multiple assessments in making eligibility, program, and placement decisions for individuals with gifts and talents.

9. References:


Bermúdez, A. B., & Rakow, S. J. (1993). Examining identification and instruction practices for gifted and talented limited English proficient students. In L.M. Malave (Ed.), Annual conference journal: Proceedings of the annual conference of the National Association for Bilingual Education (pp. 99-114). Washington, DC: National Association for Bilingual Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED360871

Two hundred and sixty-eight public school gifted coordinators in states with significant Hispanic populations (e.g. Texas, California, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, and New York) were asked to identify factors contributing to underrepresentation of Hispanic children in gifted programs. Less than 20% had a means of identifying children with Limited English Proficiency, while 80% stated that there was a need to have diverse assessments that took cultural and language differences into consideration. Less than 10% had programs that were targeted at such students’ needs, and very few used differentiated programs, and no one used specific targeted technology as a means of meeting student needs. Parent support was seen as high, but parental involvement was much less so.


Frasier, M. M. (1997). Multiple criteria: The mandate and the challenge. Roeper Review, 20 (2), A4-6.

Examined are many of the issues that center around the use of “multiple criteria” for identification of gifted students. Primary among these is the term “multiple” which indicates numerous measures of aptitude, achievement and creativity, rather than numerous measures of one of these aspects. Several problems are cited, including the increase costs of identification, the need for teacher training, scoring and reliability of data. It is emphasized that such multiple measures are designed to allow teachers and service provides a more holistic view of a child, the resultant strengths that can then be served, and the different levels of service that can be provided. Gentry, M.; Owen, S. V. (1999). An investigation of the effects of total school flexible cluster

grouping on identification, achievement, and classroom practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43 (4), 224-242

This study examined the effects that cluster grouping had on a school’s achievement and identification processes. During the three years of a cluster grouping program in an elementary school, achievement scores improved. In addition, more students were identified as high achieving, indicating that teachers were looking more for high achievers than in the past. It was hypothesized that when students were cluster grouped, other students in other settings rose to the expectations and performed higher as a result. In addition, the training that teachers received may have impacted their ability to identify high achievement behaviors. Harris, B., Plucker, J. A., Rapp, K.E. & Martinez, R. S. (2009). Identifying gifted and talented

English language learners: A case study. Journal for the Education, of the Gifted, 32(3), 368-393.

Using one school district as a case study, the researchers examined how students who were gifted and talented and English Language Learners (GT/ELL) were identified and served. A number of barriers were identified, including population and demographic shifts within the school district and the difficulty the district faced in serving a more diverse population. In addition, multiple assessment strategies were found to be more effective in identifying a more diverse population, but much of the challenge remained in serving such students effectively. Patton, J. M., Prillaman, D., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (1990). The nature and extent of programs

for the disadvantaged gifted in the United States and territories. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 94-96.

A survey of state and territory policies and practices found that although the verbiage was present in almost every state regarding the need to identify students from diverse and disadvantaged backgrounds, very few state or territory policies actually incorporated such beliefs into either definitional structures. In addition, very few states actually set aside specific funds to identify students from such backgrounds.


Callahan, C. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Adams, C. M., Moore, S. D., & Bland, L. C. (1995). Instruments used in the identification of gifted and talented students (Research Monograph 95130). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

The study of instruments used in the identification of gifted and talented students had multiple facets. First, published literature, standardized and locally developed identification instruments


and procedures, and strategies used to identify underserved populations were collected and catalogued in a computer database. Then standardized instruments were reviewed using the Scale for the Evaluation of Gifted Identification Instruments for each construct of giftedness that schools named as an area in which they identified gifted students. These reviews were also entered in the database. The review of identification procedures led to the compilation of standards for identification. In addition, descriptions of school systems from this sample which exhibited innovative, exemplary practice and a selected group of innovative Javits projects were described in a monograph entitled Contexts for Promise: Noteworthy Practices and Innovations in the Identification of Gifted Students.

Finally, data were collected on three locally developed instruments with potential for providing unique types of data for screening and identifying talent. The first instrument, the Diet Cola Test, was found to be reliable for group assessment purposes and useful as a program evaluation tool rather than as an identification instrument. The second instrument, a Peer Referral Form, was found to have high reliability and exhibited validity as recommended for a nomination form in the screening of Hispanic populations. Finally, the Teacher Search List was found to be reliably used by teachers in assessing middle school students.

Coleman, M. R. (2003). The identification of students who are gifted. ERIC document, ED480431

This monograph raises several issues relevant to the identification of students who are gifted, including the issues of students from diverse backgrounds. Some of the issues include the understanding that identification is for a purpose, not an end purpose. Despite this, there are several problems that must be faced when devising an identification process, including: disproportionate representation, disregard for theoretical knowledge of intelligence, frequent and common inappropriate use of statistical formulas, and a mismatch between identification models and programmatic models. Thus, appropriate identification practices must include multiple criteria, multiple sources of information, and multiple time periods of assessment. Steps in the identification process must include: a general screening or student search, a review of students for eligibility and a services option match. Identification is but a first step in serving the needs of gifted children so that they can thrive in school. Council for Exceptional Children. The Association for the Gifted. (2001, April). Diversity and

developing gifts and talents: A national action plan. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

A call to action that describes the need, nationally, to a) train educators in the needs of gifted learners from diverse backgrounds, b) ensure equitable curriculum and learning environments, c) find giftedness and d) include diversity in research efforts. Specifically addressing the need to change identification processes because of the detrimental effect traditional methods have on serving students from diverse backgrounds, the Plan proposed that there be a shift away from static, test-driven assessments as a means of identifying giftedness to more dynamic and authentic measures. Robinson, A., Shore, B., & Enerson, D. (2006). Best Practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. An extensive review of literature, Best Practices describes the process of providing “multiple windows” (p. 241) to include as a defensible practice. They note that while multiple measures should be examined, it is appropriate to identify based on the results of a single measure. They also note that the ultimate process of identification is not based on the selection of the final instruments, but on how the identification is used-how programming needs to be appropriately selected for the type of giftedness that is identified. They also warn that programmatic costs should not be used primarily for measurement purposes, but that resources should focus most


on actually serving gifted children, not just identifying them.


Coleman, M.. R. & Gallagher, J. J. (1994). Updated report on state policies related to the identification of gifted students. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, Gifted Education Policy Studies Program.

An analysis of state policies regarding identification for gifted students with specific emphasis on those populations traditionally known as “underserved”, was conducted, focusing on six major areas, specifically: (1) legislation, (2) definitions of "gifted," (3) standard identification practices, (4) nonstandard identification practices, (5) due process and grievance procedures, and (6) specific references to gifted students from special populations. Forty-three states were found to have specific policies in place to identify gifted students. Forty-six states incorporated out-of-school activities as identification procedures, 43 included measurement of creativity, and almost all 46 included multiple inputs from teacher, parents and students. Diverse populations, such as students with learning disabilities, culturally diverse and economically disadvantaged were cited by 40 states. Green, J. E. (1993). State academies for the academically gifted (Fastback Series No. 349).

Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa. This guide for residential state academies for high school students surveys the histories of such programs and how various students are served in different states. The nine state institutions are traced from the first North Carolina School for Science and Mathematics to the then-most current one in Alabama. Multiple criteria for selection was used in all institutions and the use of holistic methods rather than standardized tests were noted to result in institutional populations that were more reflective of state populations. It was noted that there was a lack of comprehensive and systematic evaluation procedures for these processes and services. Krisel, S.C., & Cowan, R.S. (1997). Georgia’s journey towards multiple criteria identification of

gifted students. Roeper Review, 20 (2), A1-3. This article describes the process that the state of Georgia undertook when they shifted from an identification process strongly based on standardized tests to a district-determined criteria that had to rely on multiple criteria. Criteria were more broadly defined, including creativity, achievement, motivation and aptitude. Aptitude alone would allow a child admission to the program, and the other three would be factors that could be considered in combination with each other. Preliminary results indicated that more students from under-represented populations were being identified and that school districts were more likely to expand their curriculum offerings for gifted students. Reyes, E. I., Fletcher, R., Paez, D. (1996). Developing local multidimensional screening

procedures for identifying giftedness among Mexican American boarder population. Roeper Review, 18 (3), 208-211.

This article described a program designed to identify students from Mexican-American backgrounds, many of whom came from English as a Second Language and impoverished backgrounds. Using multiple criteria, such as holistic scores and other measures resulted in more students being identified. When comparing cognitive styles and academic performances to students who had been identified using traditional methods, little to no differences were found.



Standard # GTS4S6:

Review and select psychometrically sound, nonbiased, qualitative and quantitative instruments that can be used to show the value added by programs in gifted and talented education.

10. References:


Johnson, S. T., Starnes, W. T., Gregory, D., & Blaylock, A. (1985). Program of assessment, diagnosis and instruction (PADI): Identifying and nurturing potentially gifted and talented minority students. Journal of Negro Education, 54, 416-430.

This article describes a program that was instituted by Montgomery County, Maryland in which multiple criteria were used for the assessment and identification of gifted students. The article focused on the validation process of a battery of techniques, including on-going and dynamic assessments used to identify potentially gifted students in primarily African-American and impoverished groups. Shaklee, B. D. (1993). Preliminary findings of the Early Assessment for Exceptional Potential

project. Roeper Review, 16, 105-109. This article shared the results of a Javits-funded project in which young children from primarily minority and economically disadvantaged backgrounds were identified with exceptional potential, using dynamic assessment. The article describes the process of dynamic assessment in which a test-intervene-retest model and portfolio collection of data was used to determine potential for growth given instruction. Results indicated higher rates of identification among targeted groups. In addition, teacher attitudes were more positive and teachers were more likely to identify potential and the need for gifted programming in minority children. Walters, J., Gardner, H., & Seidel, S. (2006). APPLE project. Retrieved July 20, 2009 from http://pzweb.harvard.edu/Research/APPLE.htm The APPLE (Assessing Projects and Portfolios for LEarning) Project investigated and collected the use and implementation of portfolio assessment of children. The project collected a library of portfolios and established a forum for educators. Although not specifically focused on the needs of gifted children, the project did focus educators on the needs of all children and the development of strengths as opposed to a more deficit-based model of assessment.


Arter, J., & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Although not specifically about gifted behaviors, this book provides specific instruction to teachers and researchers about constructing rubrics for assessment purposes. Included in the book are such topics as the differences between holistic versus analytical trait, and specific versus generic rubrics. Such a book would be an integral resource for districts looking to move to more dynamic and authentic assessment models for identification purposes.

http://pzweb.harvard.edu/Research/APPLE.htm


Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability and

talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165-182.

This article argues that the concept of giftedness as an individual trait is a flawed assumption; that giftedness is, in fact, a person’s response to a situation and cannot be taken out of the context of learning. Implications for identification of giftedness then, are significant. Static assessment, in which we evaluate the inherent qualities of a child are perceived as flawed, and dynamic assessment, in which we examine the varied responses of a child to a learning activity would be, according to the precepts raised in the article, the only true measure of intelligence. Furthermore, if there are learners whose responses are less than adequate, we would not “label” child, but change the stimulus. This article has significant implications for the conception of talent development in that when students are excelling, their environment is credited and when they are not, their environment can be amended. The key then, is not assessing the child, but assessing the effectiveness of the environment. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific

conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227. Using the context of a college physics class, this article describes dynamic assessment in action. As students were introduced to a new concept and asked questions without any direct instruction, their reactions were noted. It explored the differences between students who had flaws in their assumptions about the content, and processed the material quickly, and students who searched out anomalies and were able to change their thinking patterns- higher level learning. With the explanation of thinking changes and the process through which students undertook their learning, a teacher could be encouraged to look for such self-questioning of assumptions in younger students as a dynamic measure of giftedness. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of

learning potential. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Using a strong background in statistics, the authors note that conventional IQ tests account for only 25% of school “success” and only about 10% of life’s “successes”. A far more valid measure would be then be established through dynamic assessment. Intelligence is perceived as a dynamic, mutable, and ultimately a flexible relationship between an individual and a learning task. The book provides a description of how dynamic testing can be established by carefully constructing the nature of the learning activity. Unlike static assessments, such as IQ tests, that measure what has been learned, dynamic assessment examines learning potential. Individual abilities are then collections of expertise that has been developed over time and in response to particular situations. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 24, 359-375. Taking on the very definition of intelligence, Sternberg defines intelligence as the process of developing expertise, or “the ongoing process of the acquisition and consolidation of a set of skills needed for a high level of mastery in one or more domains of life performance” (p. 359). Thus, a static assessment, such as an IQ test, only measures the realized expertise that someone has brought to a given circumstance, not the process of developing such expertise. Sternberg also noted that it is understandable that traditional tests demonstrate unequal results among groups, since it is Western values that are being assessed. People from cultures outside of the mainstream Western viewpoint will have skills that are not then assessed on the traditional measures, and will be deemed “less” intelligent, when in reality, they may have very strong and expert skills in other areas. It is only through dynamic assessment that one can look at the process of learning, rather than the potentially culturally-biased results of learning.


VanTassel-Baska, J. (2008). Using performance-based assessments to document authentic

learning. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.) Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 285-308). Washington, DC: National Association of Gifted Children.

This chapter states that it is possible to use performance–based assessments for identification purposes because it is through performance that gifted students can be best evaluated in their learning processes. In addition, the chapter describes how many of the characteristics of gifted students from low-income backgrounds align nicely with features of performance-based measures. The process of creating and criteria for task development are shared, and the need to make sure the task demands are in alignment with the purposes of the instruction. Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing.

New York: Jossey-Bass. Rather than a “How to” book, this book examines the philosophical and moral bases of assessment, rather than the technology or politics of assessment. Grant Wiggins asserts that increased testing won’t help us improve schools because the testing in place now looks at results of tests, rather than the processing of learning. Because assessors only examine results and don’t examine students’ work or how students achieved a response, the results are interesting, but useless. He leads the reader to looking at assessment as more than testing, and is a means of determining the learning habits of students’ minds. Although not directly related to gifted education, the text has direct implications on how much credence we give to students’ test results and how we can determine appropriate programming for students.


Hanna, G. S. & Dettmer, P. A. (2004). Assessment for effective teaching: Using context-adaptive planning. Boston: Pearson.

A textbook for use by teachers, the book provides an overview of assessment issues and guided instruction, using real-world applications and stories by teachers. There is a chapter on products and performance assessment that develops teachers’ understandings of rubrics and their applications for learning. Although there is a chapter on students with special needs, there is no corresponding emphasis placed on students who are achieving ahead of their peers. However, the concepts of appropriately determined assessing can be applied to gifted learners. Johnsen, S. K. & Ryser, G. R. (1997). The validity of portfolios in predicting performance in a

gifted program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 253-267. This study correlated samples collected from 216 students in grades K-2 with their performance in a gifted program four years later. Scores on the portfolios correlated with achievement subtest scores in reading and math, but there was no relationship to classroom performance scores. Thus, while the validity of portfolios as predictors of success on more standardized measures was established, a question arose about the validity of portfolios for teacher perceptions. VanTassel-Baska, J. Johnson, D., & Avery, L. 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.

This study examined the results found within a state of using performance measures to identify gifted students. Performance measures included pre-teaching activities, rubrics and exemplars provided. A field test found that additional students were identified for gifted services beyond


the limits found using more traditional measures. This additional group of students more closely represented the demographics of the district, with 12% of the identified students being African-American and 14% from poverty and low-incomes. The performance-based measure was perceived as a “value-added” component to the state’s identification system and a more effective means of identifying diverse students than strict use of traditional measures. Wright, L., & Borland, J. H. (1993). Using early childhood developmental portfolios in the

identification and education of young, economically disadvantaged, potentially gifted students. Roeper Review, 15, 205-210.

The article reports the results of a Javits program in which portfolios were used to identify, place and develop curriculum for kindergarten students who were potentially gifted from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. In the article, portfolios as a process of identification is argued as a very appropriate fit for gifted education. Portfolios can demonstrate growth over time, indicating precocity and can document growth in a variety of developmental components, adding to their flexibility and utility.


Design and implement culturally-responsive evaluation procedures.

5. References:



Artiles, A. J., & Zamora-Duran, G. (Eds). (1997). Reducing disproportionate representation of culturally diverse students in special and gifted education. The Council for Exceptional Children: Arlington, VA.

This book discusses the disproportionate representation of students from minority backgrounds in special education and gifted classes, and presents strategies that practitioners can use to better address the educational needs of all students. Chapter 1 provides an outline of the problem of student placement, disproportionate representation, and misclassification. Chapter 2 criticizes traditional standardized assessment approaches that disregard students’ prior knowledge and cultural differences and proposes the use of performance assessment approaches. In Chapter 3, the cultural influences on student behavior are discussed as well as the need for educators to be aware of the role of cultural meaning underlying human behavior. Chapter 4 presents guidelines for educators to use to assess students’ language proficiency in order to decide whether a more comprehensive assessment or a pre- referral intervention is needed. Chapter 5 discusses the under representation of children from minority backgrounds in gifted education and presents alternative assessment procedures. The final chapter provides a summary of recommended practices to address the problem of disproportionate representation. (ERIC abstract). Esquivel, G. B., & Houtz, J. C. (Eds.) (2000). Creativity and giftedness in culturally diverse


students. Perspectives on creativity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. The 11 chapters in this text address issues concerned with identification and educational intervention with gifted students who are from culturally diverse backgrounds. Kitano, M. K., & Espinosa, R. (1995). Language diversity and giftedness: Working with gifted

English language learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 18, 234-254. Summarizes the literature on the education of gifted students with primary languages other than English or English language learners and suggests guidelines for practice. Characteristics and identification of these students are discussed. The adaptation of traditional identification models (e.g., recognition and referral) is described, and new strategies for identification (including alternative constructs of giftedness) are discussed. Service delivery, instructional methods, and community involvement for gifted English language learners are also discussed.


Belcher, R., & Fletcher-Carter, R. (1999). Growing gifted students in the desert: Using alternative, community-based assessment and an enriched curriculum. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32, 17-24.

Describes a federally funded Javits project that involved two rural elementary schools with a primarily Hispanic population. The project was designed to develop an alternative community-based assessment procedure for identifying gifted minority students. Identified students were taught using a developed science curriculum that focused on problem solving of futuristic scenarios. A number of resources are provided. (ERIC abstract)


ACC5: Professional Development and Ethical Practice

Standard # GTS5K3:

Program and professional standards in general, special, and gifted and talented education that enhance services to individuals with exceptional gifts and talents

11. References:


Moon, T. R., Brighton, C. M., & Callahan, C. M. (2003). State standardized testing programs: Friend or foe of gifted education. Roeper Review, 25(2), 49-60.

From the abstract: The intent of this study was to investigate the effects of state testing programs on the instructional practices of elementary school teachers and the effects of such practices on their gifted students' attitudes toward school and motivation. In the first phase of the study, a survey completed by 8,044 teachers provided information about their attitudes and practices. In the second phase of the study, qualitative techniques and the use of focus groups of gifted students and teachers provided information about student attitudes and teacher practices. Results suggest that teachers' perceptions of standards, tests, and students shape their classroom actions. These actions indicate that teachers influenced by testing programs are not


likely to engage in effective classroom practices, but instead engage in one-size-fits-all practices. Implications of the perceptions on professional development and talent development are discussed.


Hockett, J. A. (2009). Curriculum for highly able learners that conforms to general education and gifted education quality indicators. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32, 394-440.

From the abstract: Legislative measures designed to ensure that all students meet minimal expectations have concerned leaders in gifted education. In this current educational climate of standards and accountability, however, there is arguably greater agreement than ever before between experts and professional organizations in general education and their counterparts in gifted education on what constitutes high-quality curriculum. Toward demonstrating that many groups of learners, gifted among them, stand to benefit from the consensus, this paper (a)synthesizes guidance from curricular voices in both fields; (b) evaluates the viability of 3 gifted education curriculum models--the Integrated Curriculum Model (VanTassel-Baska, 1986), the Multiple Menu Model (Renzulli, 1988) and the Parallel Curriculum Model (Tomlinson et al., 2002)--to conform to these guidelines and contribute to exemplary curriculum design for all learners, including those who are highly able; and (c) offers suggestions for how general education and gifted education can create curricular conditions conducive to educating highly able learners well. Tomlinson, C. A., Coleman, M. R., Allan, S., Udall, A., & Landrum, M. (1996). Interface between

gifted education and general education: Toward communication, cooperation, and collaboration. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 165-171.

From the abstract: This study explored attitudes of 50 general educators and educators working with gifted students regarding linkage between the general and gifted education programs. Suggestions for increasing communication, cooperation, and collaboration between general and gifted practitioners are provided.


Newman, J. L. (2008). Talents are unlimited: It’s time to teach thinking skills again. Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 34-44.

From the abstract: The Talents Unlimited model, described in this article, provides teachers with research-based resources and instructional strategies that can be crafted into: (a) thinking skills lessons for all students in all content areas; (b) engaging units for students in special education, general education, and gifted education; and (c) an effective training process for students who demonstrate gifted behavior in completing quality investigations of real problems that result in professional products and services.


Plan and provide professional development in gifted and talented education for varied audiences.

12. References:



Bangel, N. J., Enersen, D., Capobianco, B., Moon, S. M. (2006). Professional development of preservice teachers: Teaching in the Super Saturday Program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 339-361.

From the abstract: This study examined the change in beliefs by one cohort of preservice teachers after participation in a gifted education course and practicum. Interviews with the participants following the intervention period were used to assess the participants' perceptions of the effect the course and practicum had on their understanding of gifted students' needs and their ability to meet those needs. Interview data were triangulated with classroom observations and lesson plans created by the participants for use during the practicum. Findings indicated the participants perceived an increase in their overall level of professional development, as well as an increase in their level of understanding of the characteristics and needs of gifted students. Latz, A. O., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. A., & Pierce, R. L. (2009). Peer coaching to

improve classroom differentiation: Perspectives from Project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31(1), 27-39.

From the abstract: As traditional pull-out programs for students who are identified as gifted and talented (GT) decrease in number, classroom differentiation is becoming more essential for general education teachers at the elementary level. Despite the importance of differentiation, teachers are still not implementing it on a regular basis. One strategy that may help teachers become more adept at differentiating content is mentoring or peer coaching. The literature is replete with studies examining both classroom differentiation and collegial peer coaching; however, few studies have examined how peer coaching may facilitate teachers' abilities to effectively differentiate instruction. The present study sought to understand how a peer coach for teachers may influence teachers' understandings and abilities to facilitate differentiated lessons for high-ability students.


Karnes, F. A., & Shaunessy, E. (2004). The application of an individual professional development plan to gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 27(3), 60-64.

From the abstract: Research indicates that ongoing, high-quality staff development is essential to achieving significant standards-based reform. Currently, the majority of teachers do not regularly participate in staff development practices in the United States. Staff development decisions have traditionally been made by school administrators to meet the needs of students and to address school, district, and national goals in gifted education. In this model, teachers have been sideline observers with little or no participation in the planning of these professional development efforts. While this paradigm is cost- and time-efficient, this one-size-fits-all approach to staff development fails to address the learning needs of each teacher in a district. Many districts are beginning to recognize that all teachers can benefit from designing individual professional development plans (Richardson, 2002). District leaders encourage the professional growth of their teachers through these plans that link "individual learning with school goals and school wide learning with district goals" (p. 1). Furthermore, several districts that have required individual professional development plans for their teachers have received the U.S. Department of Education's Model Professional Development Awards for their outstanding staff development activities. All teachers, regardless of subject area or grade level, can grow professionally through this process and can positively affect student learning, including teachers who already demonstrate excellence in their teaching. Wycoff, M., Nash, W. R., Juntune, J. E., & Mackay, L. (2003). Purposeful professional

development: Planning positive experiences for teachers of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Today, 26(4), 34-41.


From the abstract: Maximum academic achievement for gifted and talented students can only be accomplished when teachers are given the tools, support, and training needed to strengthen instructional skills and develop knowledge of the social and emotional needs of the students they serve. Providing meaningful professional development to develop or enhance these skills is a challenge for administrators responsible for the planning and implementation of training experiences for teachers of gifted students. As Dettmer (1998) wrote, "Educators are lifelong learners who continue studying their content areas and honing their instructional skills long after they complete the teacher preparation program". She added that, unfortunately, staff development tends to be regarded by too many educators as "irrelevant, time wasteful, poorly presented, and lacking in follow-up assistance". Therefore, in spite of the importance of professional development, teachers do not always accept mandated in-service sessions with enthusiasm. Research by Joyce and Showers (1988) indicated that all teachers can learn powerful and complex teaching strategies if they participate in well-designed staff development. As a result, planners of professional development must investigate models and designs that can provide educators with a variety of worthwhile opportunities to enhance their knowledge and skills. When professional development experiences are meaningful and transferable, the knowledge and skills attained will lead to enhanced teaching practices, resulting in quality instruction for gifted and talented students.


Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2005). A dynamic scaffolding model of teacher development: The gifted education consultant as catalyst for change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 222-230.

From the abstract: The Dynamic Scaffolding Model (DSM) of teacher development is

proposed

as a good way to meet gifted learners' exceptional learning needs while remaining consistent with

current educational realities and research. Using an implementation experience as

an illustration,

we examine how a gifted education consultant can support teachers in addressing the diverse

educational needs of high-ability learners in their classrooms, as well as encouraging

high-level

outcomes in learners not identified as gifted, leading to classrooms that are more engaging for

both students and teachers. In this model, teachers are given opportunities for scaffolded

learning

and interaction in the form of (a) a series of optional professional development workshops on

giftedness, (b) ongoing and targeted individual consultation opportunities, and (c)

diverse

professional liaisons. We compare the DSM with other resource consultation models, and we

discuss characteristics identified by participating teachers as important in their work

with gifted

learners and others.


Apply knowledge of diversity and practice to enhance outcomes across diverse groups of individuals with gifts and talents.

13. References:


Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 479-499.

From the abstract: The present study sought to examine the perceptions of giftedness and


identification procedures held by experienced teachers of gifted minority students. Twenty-seven 4th-grade teachers of gifted students in an urban school system with a high representation of minority and economically disadvantaged students were surveyed. Results indicated that experienced teachers still held a narrow conception of giftedness and were not aware of how culture and environmental factors may influence the expression of giftedness in minority and economically disadvantaged students. Findings also indicated that these teachers expressed concerns for approximately one third of their students qualifying for the gifted program. These concerns were based primarily on students having a skill deficit in one area, poor work habits, or behavioral or family problems. Teachers were less likely to notice gifted characteristics in these students compared to other identified students, even though both groups were identified in the same way. Implications for teaching gifted minority and economically disadvantaged students are discussed.


Baldwin, A. Y., & Vialle, W. (1999). The many faces of giftedness: Lifting the mask. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

From barnesandnoble.com: Giftedness is not easily recognized when there are cultural differences or some form of disability. This book explores the many ways in which children's intellectual potential, or giftedness, has been overlooked because of ethnicity or a disability that masks their potential. Case studies and suggestions for activities are featured as tools to use that will emphasize awareness of the issues involved. Castellano, J. (2004). Empowering and serving Hispanic students in gifted education. In D.

Boothe & J. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 1-13). Waco, TZ: Prufrock.

From http://www.apa.org/ed/gorgia_review.pdf: Jaime Castellano's opening chapter on Hispanic students addresses the extent to which Hispanic students have balanced their home, school, and community worlds, and the resulting implications on curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Included are examples of curricula which address the strengths of these students. Ford, D. Y., Crantham, T. C., & Milner, H. R. (2004). Underachievement among gifted African

American students: Cultural, social, and psychological considerations. In D. Boothe & J. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 15-31). Waco, TZ: Prufrock.

From http://www.apa.org/ed/gorgia_review.pdf: The chapter on African-American students, written by Donna Ford, Tarek Grantham, and H. Richard Milner, addresses the cultural, social, and psychological factors that contribute to the underachievement of gifted African-American students. They cover topics from within-group peer pressure against "acting White" to the need for increased teacher training on cultural diversity, and they make recommendations for matching educational approaches to the cultural characteristics of African-Americans. Ford, D. Y., & Harris J. J. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York: Teachers College

Press. From amazon.com: Focusing specifically on gifted education from a multicultural perspective, this work provides a practical resource for raising the expectations and level of instruction for minority students. The authors offer case studies of multicultural gifted education in practice, suggest methods for "best practice" for classroom teachers, supply sample multicultural activities, and provide guidelines and a checklist to help the reader evaluate his or her school's multicultural education programme. This volume aims to help educators to modify their curricula and educational practices to ensure that the goal of preparing students for a diverse world is reached.

http://www.apa.org/ed/gorgia_review.pdf



Klug, B. J. (2004). Children of the Starry Cope: Gifted and talented Native American students. In

D. Boothe & J. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 49-71). Waco, TZ: Prufrock.

From http://www.apa.org/ed/gorgia_review.pdf: Beverly Klug's chapter brings to light some of the cultural differences that lead to reduced identification for gifted and talented Native American students. Some of this scholarship is not found as commonly as other scholarship on issues of race, so one may find this chapter particularly useful. Owen, S. V. (2004). To be gifted & learning disabled: Strategies for helping bright students with

LD, ADHA, and more. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. From amazon.com: Students who are gifted, but who struggle with a learning disability or attention deficit are a strange paradox: they have special intellectual gifts, but are unsuccessful with certain basic learning tasks. Their potential is at great risk of going untapped and undeveloped because the major focus of educational intervention is on what these students do not know and cannot do rather than on nurturing their talents. These students require special attention, and it is vital that schools pay attention to the gifts as well as the learning difficulties. This revised and expanded edition of To Be Gifted and Learning Disabled offers up-to-date information on identifying and meeting the needs of gifted and learning disabled (GLD) youngsters. Part I discusses the patterns of accomplishments and failures that many GLD students present as well as identification and diagnosis issues. Part II explores the contemporary psychological theory and research that guides educational applications for GLD students. And Part III offers practical strategies for teaching GLD students and helping them plan and explore options for their future. Three new chapters in this resource cover self regulation, developing comprehensive IEPs for GLD students, and the roles parents and counselors can play in meeting the social and emotional needs of GLD students. Thoroughly researched and filled with case studies, practical suggestions and techniques for working with GLD students, useful resources, and much more, To Be Gifted and Learning Disabled is a resource anyone who works or lives with a child who has both startling talents and disabling weaknesses should have. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2004). Curriculum compacting: A research-based differentiation

strategy for culturally diverse talented students. In D. Boothe & J. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 87-100). Waco, TZ: Prufrock.

From http://www.apa.org/ed/gorgia_review.pdf: Joseph Renzulli and Sally Reis discuss the benefits of curriculum compacting, particularly in those urban environments where gifted programs are sparse or unavailable, relying instead upon within-class differentiated instruction for students of varying levels of performance. Sethna, B. N. (2004). An unconventional view of gifted children of Indian descent in the United

States. In D. Boothe & J. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 101-117). Waco, TZ: Prufrock.

From http://www.apa.org/ed/gorgia_review.pdf: Beheruz Sethna's chapter on Indian students probes more deeply into Indian culture, where hard work is prioritized over a sense of innate giftedness, and the stereotype of "pushy parents." Slocumb, P. D., & Payne R. K. (2000). Removing the mask: Giftedness in poverty. Highlands, TX:

aha! Process, Inc. From amazon.com: Ruby K. Payne is best known for her work on the "hidden rules of economic class" and how they affect learning, after 30 years in public education. Now a speaker and publisher, she teams with Dr. Paul Slocumb, former president of Texas Association for the Gifted





and Talented and deputy superintendent for curriculum and instruction. Dr. Slocumb is now consulting and writing, and speaks extensively on this subject. Removing the Mask provides identification instruments and processes to identify gifted learners from poverty, thus enabling schools to achieve equity in their gifted program. Behavior interventions and support systems for the students, once identified, helps keep them in the program and succeed.


Ford, D. Y., & Moore, J. L. (2004). Creating culturally responsive gifted education classrooms: Understanding “culture” is the first step. Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 34-39.

From the abstract: Educators need to be more aware of and sensitive to the implications of diversity for themselves and their students. The student population is becoming more diverse at a faster rate than the teacher population. Teachers must understand other cultures in terms of concept of self, concept of time, personal vs. social responsibility, locus of control, and communication styles. Educators must find additional ways to increase the recruitment and retention of diverse students in gifted education programs. Milner. H. R., & Ford, D. Y. (2005). Racial experiences influence us as teachers: Implications for

gifted education curriculum development and implementation. Roeper Review, 28, 30-36. From the abstract: In this article, the authors share a story that, in part, represented both of their experiences teaching in higher education. As African American educators in predominantly White universities, they both find themselves facing, dealing with, and overcoming racism. These experiences shape their curriculum. They see their personal and professional responsibility as that of preparing future and current educators (e.g., teachers, counselors, administrators) to work effectively in culturally and racially diverse settings. They challenge educators to think or rethink gifted education curriculum. They urge educators to become self-reflective professionals who see the connection--direct connection--between their personal beliefs, attitudes, and values and their work in developing and implementing curriculum. They maintain that teaching is not only a social process--it is also a personal and cultural process. Who they are as individuals, who they are as cultural and racial beings, influences who they are as teachers/educators in the classroom, and these identities bear meaningfully on what students have had the opportunity to learn. Thus, they urge educators to see beyond their own worldview to consider teaching and learning through the eyes of their students, so many of whom are racially and culturally diverse.


Promote opportunities to increase diversity at all levels of gifted and talented education.

14. References:


Grantham, T. C. (2004). Multicultural mentoring to increase black male representation in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 232-245.

From the abstract: This article explores factors that affect the decision of gifted Black males to participate in gifted programs. Ford (1996) maintains that Black students often "choose" not to participate in gifted programs, and this choice contributes to their underrepresentation in gifted


education. This choice to not participate in gifted programs is often based on social or external influences, particularly negative peer pressures, as well as internal or psychological issues, namely racial identity status. Given this perspective, a participation motivation model, developed by the author, is described, along with a discussion of how racial identity influences the choices Black males make about participating in gifted programs. While many options exist for helping these students to make constructive and long-term decisions, this article concentrates on the potentially powerful influence of mentorships as a viable retention strategy.


Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted black students. New York: Teachers College Press.

From amazon.com: This text offers a discussion of the effort to end underachievement among gifted Black students and to increase the multicultural and multiracial representation of youth in gifted education. Ford, D. Y. (2003). Two other wrongs don’t make a right: Sacrificing the needs of diverse

students does not solve gifted education’s unresolved problems. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 283-291.

From the abstract: While Robinson argues that we are sacrificing the needs of gifted students--"we are punishing the innocent for the sins of a society that has been unable to conquer these problems" (p. 251)--I propose a different argument: We are punishing diverse students, also innocent victims, for the sins of a society and an educational system that have not adequately addressed historical and contemporary social injustices. Minority students who are gifted and have the potential to achieve at higher levels are being denied opportunities to participate in gifted education for numerous reasons. This position is followed by examples of such ills and recommendations that support and build upon those provided by Robinson to solve or resolve problems associated with the unnecessary competition between excellence and equity and between gifted education and diversity. Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse

students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74, 289-306.

From the abstract: The field of gifted education has faced criticism about the underrepresentation of African American, Hispanic/Latino, and American Indian students who are culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) in its programs. This article proposes that efforts targeting both recruitment and retention barriers are essential to remedying this disparity. Educators' deficit thinking about CLD students underlies both areas (recruitment and retention) and contributes to underrepresentation in significant, meaningful ways. The authors examine factors hindering the recruitment and retention of CLD students in gifted education, attending in particular to definitions and theories, testing, and referral issues, and offer recommendations for improving the representation of CLD students in gifted education. Ford, D. Y., & Trotman, M. F. (2001). Teachers of gifted students: Suggested multicultural

characteristics and competencies. Roeper Review, 23, 235-239. From the abstract: This article discusses desired characteristics and competencies in teachers of gifted students who are culturally, ethnically, or linguistically diverse. These include: culturally relevant pedagogy, equity pedagogy, a holistic teaching philosophy, a communal philosophy, respect for students' primary language, culturally congruent instructional practices, culturally sensitive assessment, student-family-teacher relationships, and teacher diversity.


Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Realities in desegregating gifted education. In D. Boothe & J. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 138-155). Waco, TZ: Prufrock.

From http://www.apa.org/ed/gorgia_review.pdf: Gottfredson's perspective is that giftedness simply is not distributed equally across demographic groups, and she directly takes issue with the stance of Donna Ford Moore, J. L., Ford, D. Y., & Milner, H. R. (2005). Recruitment is not enough: Retaining African

American students in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 51-67. From the abstract: In public school systems all around the country, educators--teachers, counselors, and administrators--have made significant progress in identifying and recruiting diverse populations in gifted and enrichment programs. Despite the efforts, too many African American students and other students of color (e.g., Hispanic Americans and Native Americans) are not faring well in gifted education. The social and cultural obstacles (e.g., racial and ethnic prejudice, negative peer pressure, poor parental involvement, negative teacher and counselor expectations, etc.) that students of color, particularly African Americans, face in gifted education are well known. In order to improve African American student retention, it is clear that public school systems must do more. Recruitment is an important component for increasing the number of African American students in gifted education, but retention is equally important. Using multiple frameworks, this article examines the notion of retention and its many challenges and offers recommendations for improving the retention of African American students in gifted education. Moore, J. L., Ford, D. Y., & Owens, D. (2006). Retention of African Americans in gifted education:

Lessons learned from higher education. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 19(2), 3-12.

From the abstract: Predominately White institutions of higher education have focused a considerable amount of attention on the underrepresentation of African American and other ethnically diverse students in colleges and universities. To address this problem, colleges and universities have focused not just on recruitment but also on the retention of African American students in these predominately White institutions. They have recognized that efforts to address underrepresentation cannot be limited to recruitment efforts; they must also consider factors associated with retention in the underrepresentation equation. We contend that gifted education embodies many of the same attributes, challenges, and barriers that predominately White colleges and universities possess for African American students. We recognize that, in public school systems, educators--teachers, school counselors, and administrators--have made much progress in recruiting culturally diverse populations in gifted programs. Despite the efforts, too many African American students are not being retained in gifted education programs. Using Sedlacek's non-cognitive variables (1987, 1989, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998), we examine the notion of retention and its many implications for gifted education. Thus, we offer, using these variables, recommendations for improving the retention of African American students in gifted education. National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. From amazon.com: Special education and gifted and talented programs were designed for children whose educational needs are not well met in regular classrooms. From their inceptions, these programs have had disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic minority students. What causes this disproportion? Is it a problem? "Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education" considers possible contributors to that disparity, including early biological and environmental influences and inequities in opportunities for preschool and K-12 education, as well as the possibilities of bias in the referral and assessment system that leads to placement in special programs. It examines the data on early childhood experience, on differences in educational opportunity, and on referral and placement. The book also considers whether



disproportionate representation should be considered a problem. Do special education programs provide valuable educational services, or do they set students off on a path of lower educational expectations? Would students not now placed in gifted and talented programs benefit from raised expectations, more rigorous classes, and the gifted label, or would they suffer failure in classes for which they are unprepared? By examining this important problem in U.S. education and making recommendations for early intervention and general education, as well as for changes in referral and assessment processes, "Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education" will be an indispensable resource to educators throughout the nation, as well as to policy makers at all levels, from schools and school districts to the state and federal governments.


Matthews, D., Foster, J., Gladstone, D., Schieck, J., & Meiners, J. (2007). Supporting professionalism, diversity, and context within a collaborative approach to gifted education. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 17, 315-345.

From the abstract: Educators concerned about gifted learners are moving toward an evidence-based perspective focusing on children with exceptionally advanced learning needs who require flexibly responsive educational attention. This article describes two system-wide implementation experiences, one in a mixed urban/rural public school board and the other in an urban board of affiliated parochial schools, designed to meet the educational needs of diversely competent students. The authors discuss the intersecting roles of consultants, teachers, administrators, and parents, and some creative applications they have implemented that illustrate a respect for (a) teachers' professionalism, (b) individual developmental diversity, and (c) context-specific opportunities and constraints. The authors discuss ways that this flexible collaborative approach to integrating consultative processes into board-wide practices addresses the diverse educational needs of gifted learners, and also encourages high-level outcomes in learners not formally identified as gifted. Weber, C. L., Boswell, C., & Smith, D. (2008). Different paths to accountability: Defining rigorous

outcomes for gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 31(1), 54-65. From the abstract: Curricular reform is an intense process. Broad-based reform--like that at the statewide level--takes on complexities that may not be easily predictable. Two states, Texas and Florida, with a large diversity of gifted populations, learn from each other as they experience creating curriculum standards for their gifted students. This article addresses the issues and dilemmas faced when committees of gifted educators in both states began redefining and designing their gifted curricula. It follows Texas through the process of developing a scope and sequence and a parallel approach with Florida's design of the curriculum frameworks for K-12 gifted learners. The approaches taken by these two states, with different paths to accountability emphasizing rigorous outcomes for gifted learners, are described in detail.


Standard # GTS5S10:

Advocate in support of education for individuals with gifts and talents at the local and national levels.

15. References:


Kennedy, D. M. (2003). Custer, South Dakota: “Gifted’s” last stand. Gifted Child Quarterly,


47, 82–93. A study investigated advocacy factors that were influential in enabling a rural school district to expand its gifted program despite greatly diminished state support and a local budget crisis. Parents played a vital role, and relationships between a parent support group, the program coordinator, and the superintendent were also important. Landrum, M., Katsiyannis, A., & DeWaard, J. (1998). A national survey of current legislative and policy trends in gifted education: Life after the national excellence report. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 21, 352–371.

Purpose was to examine the nature and availability of state legislative and policy provisions

for gifted students and to identify general state efforts to address the seven initiatives articulated

by the National Excellence Report. Surveys, which included both open-ended and forced-choice

items, were mailed to education departments in all 50 states. Responses were received from 42

states. Findings indicated that progress has been made toward some of the seven initiatives,

while little or no change has occurred for others. Specifically, progress was limited to the areas of

teacher preparation, enhanced curricular standards for gifted learners, and efforts to match world

standards. Twenty-five states indicated that they had certification in gifted education with 23

indicating that they had more complex content and higher performance standards for gifted

students. Further findings indicated some limited efforts toward serving early childhood gifted

students, expanding the inclusion of disadvantaged and minority students, and broadening the

definition of giftedness.

Larsen, M. D., Griffin, N. S., & Larsen, L. M. (1994). Public opinion regarding support for special

programs for gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 131–142.

This study examined the debate regarding the devotion of resources and development of

services to gifted and talented students in the public school system. The purpose of this survey

was to inform policy makers at local, state, and national levels about the opinions of the general

American society. The Gallup Organization conducted a telephone survey of 1,000 adults: 844

were parents of school-aged children, and 297 were parents of children identified as gifted and

talented. Surveyors reported that the public supported gifted programs, especially when the

quality of regular classroom education is not reduced. One-sixth of those surveyed supported

allocating more funding for special programs for gifted students. However, in general, there was

more support for “doing more” than “spending more,” with over 60% wanting the schools to do

more for gifted and talented programs. The authors conclude that the results should encourage

local and state legislation to differentiate more for all students.

Robinson, A., & Moon, S. M. (2003). A national study of local and state advocacy in gifted edu-

cation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(1), 8–25.

A study examined 61 examples of advocacy from 34 states and selected six sites for case

studies. Factors that supported positive outcomes include advocates who are persistent, knowl-

edgeable about both best practices in gifted education and local state political processes, and

more often collaborative than adversarial.

Todd, S. M., & Larson, A. (1992). In what ways might statewide advocates for gifted and talented

education coordinate and focus their efforts? Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 160–164.

This article examined the state of Utah and its development of a statewide advocacy design

that provided universal coordination, organization, focus, and direction on behalf of gifted and

talented students. A step-by-step process is included, demonstrating the Utah Association for

Gifted Children’s use of the creative problem-solving process to foster advocacy for the gifted and

talented in formulating goals and missions. The authors conclude that the impact of this

coordinated advocacy effort was immediately noticed through improvement in services for gifted

children, better inservice training for educators, and more focused policy at the state level. This


example of creative collaboration strategies may be useful to other states in meeting their own

advocacy affairs.


Alvino, J. (1991). Media relations: What every advocate should know about the tricks of the trade.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 204–209.

This article examines how the use of media technology can enhance advocacy efforts for

gifted education and programs. Alvino provides three rules for public relations: (a) Make an inside

contact and maintain it, (b) learn what is newsworthy, and (c) learn the distinction between form

and content. The author provides insightful information, helpful tips, and strategies for using

different media forms: news releases, features, magazines, journals, newsletters, radio,

television, and news conferences. Alvino also introduces his Driver-Rider Matrix as a strategy for

enhancing the image of an organization. “Piggyback on the reputation, image, or marketability of

someone or some organization (the driver) with the power to carry or ‘transport’ your cause (the

rider) to prominence in the public or professional eye” (p. 205).

Dettmer, P. (1991). Gifted program advocacy: Overhauling bandwagons to build support. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 35, 165–172.

After a Delphi study found that advocacy was ranked in last place among 12 gifted issues

needing attention, Dettmer expressed a need for “advocates for advocacy” so that gifted and

talented education might gain a lasting place in all public school education. The author lists these

focus areas for gifted and talented advocacy: (a) promoting gifted education judiciously,

(b) developing support among many different role groups, and (c) strengthening support levels

within the role groups. A list of political, educational, and community groups are provided for

building advocacy partnerships. A diagram of advocacy stages and a summary of key points are

added to help build gifted program support.

Irvine, D. J. (1991). Gifted education without a state mandate: The importance of vigorous advo-

cacy. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 196–199.

Using New York as an example, Irvine discusses positive and negative factors influencing

state mandates for gifted education. The use of vigorous advocacy groups, financial incentives,

mandatory screening for giftedness, and educational reform are all factors that promote the

development of programs for gifted students. Some negative factors associated with the lack of a

mandate include inequities in access to programs, difficulties in assuring the quality of programs,

and limited access to teacher preparation programs. The author concludes that although progress

can be made without a state mandate through the use of incentives, leadership, and advocacy, a

mandate can more rapidly reduce the circumstances that are likely to deprive students of gifted

and talented education and opportunities.

Karnes, F. A., & Marquardt, R. (1997). Know your legal rights in gifted education (ERIC Digest

E541). Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.

Gifted preschool, elementary, and secondary school children have very limited protections

under state and federal laws. By contrast, children and adults with disabilities have, under federal

statute and in turn under state law accepting federal provisions, comprehensive protections in the

following areas not yet applicable to the gifted: identification for screening and program admission

or eligibility purposes, educational or other institutional and related services, employment policies

and practices, architectural barriers in and about public buildings and transportation facilities, and

other civil rights protections. Parents, educators, and other concerned adults involved with gifted

children should know the legal framework in which the education and related services are set

forth. This digest addresses concerns relating to the education of gifted children, including


references for determining legal rights under state statutes, negotiation, mediation, due process,

and use of the courts.

Rash, P. K. (1998). Meeting parents’ needs. Gifted Child Today, 21(5), 14–17.

Reviews information that teachers can impart to parents to assist them in parenting gifted

children. Subjects addressed include characteristics of gifted learners, the need for early identi-

fication, school options, advocacy, myths about gifted students, the charge of elitism, the need to

organize parent associations, burnout, and resources.

Robinson, N. M. (2002). Assessing and advocating for gifted students: Perspectives for school

and clin

ical psychologists. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted

and Talented.

This monograph summarizes research about the assessment of academically gifted students

and addresses the kinds of advocacy a psychologist can offer. The components of a

comprehensive assessment are described, noting that many tests developed for the age or grade

of gifted students will fail to reflect their advanced abilities and skills. Assessment issues include

group versus individual testing, the recency of the standardization, out-of-level testing, test basals

and ceilings, and the effects of timing on performance. It points out that the reliability of ability

tests is inversely correlated with the level of IQ, resulting in greater discrepancies among abilities

for gifted than nongifted students. Gifted students may also present some special personality

concerns, such as a view of their abilities as outside of their control, which leads to fragility in the

face of challenge, realistic anxiety about high stakes testing, perfectionism and meticulousness,

and reluctance to give up on difficult items. Special situations are considered, such as testing the

highly gifted, testing the very young, testing the coached student, and assessment of children

from underserved minorities and/or ethnically isolated families. Appended are a reading list for

school psychologists and a resource list for educators. (ERIC abstract, ED476372)

Ross, P. O. (1991). Advocacy for gifted programs in the new educational climate. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 35, 173–176.

Ross expresses in this article that knowledge and access are keys in gifted and talented

advocacy. She encourages gifted educators to join district and state committees in order to obtain

knowledge about current discussions and become active participants in efforts to transform

services for gifted education. Some new initiatives, which might make a contribution to gifted

education, include ungraded primary schools, assessment of student progress, student portfolios,

and rigorous and revamped curricula. Ross believes that it is a vital duty of the gifted educator to

be an integral part of task forces and committees involved in reform to shape and support school

improvement for gifted students.

Shaklee, B. D., Padak, N. D., Barton, L. E., & Johnson, H. A. (1991). Educational partnerships:

Gifted program advocacy in action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 200–203.

These authors expressed the importance of forming educational partnerships for advocacy

purposes to ensure that appropriate representation and services for gifted students are embed-

ded within school reform frameworks. The article identifies critical elements of successful part-

nership development and assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the example collaboration,

Cooperation Alliance for Gifted Education, which was designed to enhance gifted and talented

educational opportunities in an urban setting. Themes that emerged in the development of suc-

cessful partnerships included having a clearly defined focus, specific outcomes, and sustained

and systematic communication. For educators and advocates who are interested in developing a

similar partnership, the authors offer step-by-step instructions for creating a Joint Partnership

Advisory Council.


Zirkel, P. A. (2003). The law on gifted education (Research Monograph 03178). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. This monograph provides a comprehensive, concise, and current overview of the law— specifically, legislation, regulations, and published court/administrative decisions—relating to gifted education for K–12 students. For students whose legal rights are based solely on their gifted status, the law largely boils down to (a) varying state statutes and/or regulations, and (b) for states with relatively “strong” (e.g., mandated individualized programming and impartial dispute-resolution mechanism) legislation/regulations, published hearing/review officer and court decisions that have enforced, but not expanded, the requirements for individualized programming. For gifted students who are also covered by other special status, such as those who have a disability or who are racial minorities, the legal issues are more complex and largely based on federal civil rights laws. For these “gifted-plus” students, the principal legal forums have been the U.S. Office for Civil Rights and the administrative/judicial process of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The leading issues in the gifted-plus cases to date have been eligibility, including underrepresentation, and free appropriate public education. (Author’s abstract)


Berger, S. (2001). G + advocacy = gifted. Understanding Our Gifted, 13(3), 25–28. This article discusses the importance of advocacy for gifted education programs, identifies some basic truths in gifted education (such as the reality of giftedness and the demands it makes on children and parents), considers some controversial issues (such as the notion that “all children are gifted”), and examines current threats to funding of gifted education. World Wide Web sites to support gifted advocacy efforts are noted. Bisland, A. (2003). Student-created public relations for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 26(2), 60–65. This article discusses the benefits of student participation in a gifted public relations campaign, including creating public support for gifted programming and developing leadership skills. Steps for developing a formal unit of instruction on public relations are described, along with ideas for public relations activities. Delcourt, M. A. B. (2003). Five ingredients for success: Two case studies of advocacy at the state level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(1), 26–37. Advocacy refers to individuals who believe in a particular cause and are willing to support it in multiple ways. This research includes two accounts of advocacy events regarding gifted education. In both cases, the result was legislation for increased funding and services for the gifted. This research describes how people met the challenge of being supporters of gifted education. Both group processes and individual efforts were analyzed. Five ingredients of success represented the key characteristics common to the leaders in each group: passion, preparation, inspiration, perseverance, and the ability to take advantage of serendipity. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2004 APA, all rights reserved)


Standard # GTS6S11:

Engage in ongoing professional development to maintain currency in knowledge of research and practice in gifted education and related disciplines.


16. References:


Latz, A. O., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. A., & Pierce, R. L. (2009). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: Perspectives from Project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31(1), 27-39.

From the abstract: As traditional pull-out programs for students who are identified as gifted and talented (GT) decrease in number, classroom differentiation is becoming more essential for general education teachers at the elementary level. Despite the importance of differentiation, teachers are still not implementing it on a regular basis. One strategy that may help teachers become more adept at differentiating content is mentoring or peer coaching. The literature is replete with studies examining both classroom differentiation and collegial peer coaching; however, few studies have examined how peer coaching may facilitate teachers' abilities to effectively differentiate instruction. The present study sought to understand how a peer coach for teachers may influence teachers' understandings and abilities to facilitate differentiated lessons for high-ability students. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs:

A clarion call for enhanced gifted program development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 199-210.

From the abstract: This article delineates the results of 7 gifted program evaluation

studies

conducted in 20 different school districts and places them in the context of major areas for gifted

program improvement. The author suggests that the field of gifted education may be

vulnerable to

losing its infrastructure at local levels if enhanced program development in key areas does not

occur over the next few years and if the studied districts are at all similar to

the larger group. The

paper discusses key areas of program development including identification, curriculum, program

design, staff development, parental involvement assessment, and evaluation.

The author

contends that attention to these areas is essential for improving gifted program quality and

stabilizing programs.


Dettmer, P., & Landrum, M. (Eds.). (1998). Staff development: The key to effective gifted education programs. Waco, TX: Prufrock.

From amazon.com: Developed through a joint partnership between Prufrock Press Inc. and the National Association for Gifted Children, this book will serve as a valuable reference for anyone involved in gifted and talented staff development. Staff development is an integral part of teaching and learning. Facilitators for gifted programs must be able to plan, implement, and evaluate staff development experiences for a variety of school personnel and support-role groups. This book teaches them how. It acts as a nuts and bolts guide, saving hours of time and effort. Staff Development guides the reader through the process of staff development—from organizing, planning, and conducting, to following up. In learning excellent skills as staff developers, gifted education professionals can help teachers adopt more accepting and facilitative attitudes toward highly able students. Samples of ready-to-use forms and surveys are included. Gubbins, E. J. (2008). Professional development. In J. Plucker & C. Callahan (Eds.), Critical

issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 535-562). Waco, TX: Prufrock.

About the chapter: Gubbins provides an overview of the literature regarding professional development for teachers of learners identified as gifted. The focus is centered around: continued professional development, effective program formats, and changing the ways teachers view and


understand both professional development and gifted education. Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2005). Being smart about gifted children. Scottsdale, AZ: Great

Potential Press. From amazon.com: Written for parents and educators - especially those who live and work with gifted/high-ability children - the authors describe ways to develop children's natural abilities. Introducing the "mystery" and "mastery" models of gifted education, they invite controversy by challenging several commonly held assumptions. They then present practical strategies to help parents and educators identify and nurture the abilities of children with high ability. This book answers the charges that special programs for gifted children are elitist. The authors demonstrate that it is simply appropriate to provide educational experiences that each child needs at a particular time. (Chapter 15 is about teacher development.) Reis, S. M., & Westberg, K. L. (2003). The impact of staff development on teachers’ ability to

modify curriculum for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 127-135. From the abstract: In this study, three levels of staff development were provided

to elementary

teachers to train them in a technique called curriculum compacting. Teachers in 20 school

districts across the country were randomly assigned by district to one of three treatment

groups

that received different levels of staff development. After receiving training in curriculum

compacting (a procedure that enables teachers to eliminate previously mastered curriculum

and

substitute more challenging alternatives), teachers were able to eliminate between 42% and 54%

of the content for the high-ability students they selected. Teachers in Treatment Group

3, who

received the most intensive staff development, completed the highest rated compactor forms. The

majority of the teachers in the study were enthusiastic about the process of modifying

curriculum

for high-ability students, reinforcing Guskey's (1986) model of the process of teacher change.

Strickland, C. A. (2009). Professional development for differentiating instruction. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. From barnesandnoble.com: A teacher using differentiated instruction employs varied strategies to capitalize on the learning potential of every student. But how can teachers and administrators learn to use differentiated strategies by participating in professional development that is not differentiated for their needs? To best use differentiated strategies, they need to first see them in action. In this action tool, differentiation expert Cindy Strickland provides staff developers, teacher leaders, and other professional development leaders with the tools they need to model differentiation as they show teachers and administrators how to successfully implement and maintain differentiated instruction initiatives. This valuable professional development resource contains more than 45 tools and activities that can be used in workshops, professional learning communities, and small-group settings with participants at all levels of skill and familiarity with differentiation. These tools and activities, which are also available for download along with additional online-only tools, will help professional development leaders: • Establish a learning environment that is welcoming and respectful of teachers and administrators at all levels of expertise with regard to differentiation; • Increase teachers' and administrators' knowledge about, understanding of, and skill with differentiated practices; • Use ongoing assessment to guide staff development; • Plan respectful differentiated staff development activities; and • Flexibly and reflectively group teachers for a variety of learning experiences. Staff developers and other professional development leaders can use this practical and interactive action tool to help ensure that their participants learn firsthand the value of high-quality differentiated instruction and are armed with the tools to implement these principles in ways that will help all learners succeed. Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools & classrooms.


Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. From amazon.com: Try going a week without hearing a call for a massive overhaul of our educational system. Parents, students, educators, bureaucrats, pundits . . . everyone says something must be done. But what? And who should do it? In this environment, school leaders must build bridges for change. As the system now stands, many students spend great portions of their lives feeling inferior if they struggle, invisible if they already know the material, problematic if they’re not a child of the dominant culture, and perverse if they question the school agenda. This book explores how school leaders can develop responsive, personalized, and differentiated classrooms. Differentiation is simply a teacher attending to the learning needs of a particular student or small group of students, rather than teaching a class as though all individuals in it were basically alike. Expert educators teach individuals the most important things in the most effective ways. No single approach works with all students. Classrooms function best when teachers and students join to develop multiple avenues to learning. Until every student is growing and successful, our own growth is unfinished. The authors show how school leaders can encourage and support growth in our classrooms.


Besnoy, K. (2007). Creating a personal technology improvement plan for teachers of the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 30(4), 44-48.

From the abstract: Although many educators would like to use technology tools as an instructional medium, two obstacles prevent GT teachers from integrating technology into the curriculum: access to resources and continuous professional development. As a result of the one-size-fits-all aspect of technology-focused professional development opportunities, GT teachers cannot afford to wait for districtwide staff development sessions to teach them how to integrate computer resources. Rather, they must independently seek professional development opportunities that meet their specific instructional technology (IT) needs. A Personal Technology Improvement Plan (PTIP) facilitates this by allowing GT teachers to create an individualized professional development plan. Whether the GT teacher is a novice or an expert at integrating technology into the gifted education classroom, PTIPs can help improve his or her ability to use computers as an instructional tool. This article discusses a five-step process that GT teachers should follow in order to create an effective plan that provides continual development over a 5-year period.


ACC6: Collaboration Standard # GTS6S1:

Collaborate across different stakeholder groups to create networks and coalitions to improve the education of individuals with gifts and talents.

17. References:


Dansinger, S. (1998). Integrating gifted in special education services in the schools. Gifted Child Today, 21(3), 38-41.


Using clinical observations, surveys, and interviews with gifted teachers to identify a need for a closer collaboration between special education programs and gifted education programs. Dansinger strongly advocated for the 7 to 10% gifted students classified as twice exceptional (2e). He found that the majority of the twice exceptional students are unidentified, thus they are underserved. Based on interviews with four participants, found gifted students had the same percentage of educational handicaps as students in general, but modifications were not made to service students in both areas. One reason for the lapse might have been the criteria school districts used for referrals. He asserted that the first step for providing students with special needs the services they require was to “coordinate, collaborate, and communicate.” The study concluded by stating a strong need to involve parents and the general education teacher to serve the 2e population. Landrum, M. S. (2001). An evaluation of the catalyst program: Consultation and collaboration in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(2), 139-151. Landrum reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of the Catalyst Program (Landrum & Ward, 1994), a two-year project of a gifted education service delivery model used in a large school district. The author presents a detailed and well-organized article, complete with charts, graphs, and tables that support claims made in her evaluation. Landrum focuses on the effects of resource consultation on the enhancement of academic performance for gifted students and same age peer groups, as well as its effects on teachers’ abilities, performances and effectiveness. Pretests and post tests were given to assess cognitive processes. Landrum finds that the collaboration of general education teachers with the gifted education teachers spilled over to impact the entire school by improving teacher competencies. Although limited to 10 elementary schools, Landrum observed the model needed to broaden its application to a wider audience. Bias in the study may have occurred as Landrum served as consultant, staff developer, and evaluator; therefore, the spill-over effect must be acknowledged. There were implications that more diverse and frequent services might be expected for gifted students with this type of model. Penney, S., & Wilgosh, L. (2000). Fostering parent-teacher relationships when children are gifted. Gifted Education International, 14(3), 217-229. Penney and Wilgosh focused on the relationships between the parents of gifted students and teachers of gifted students. The study presented an overview of existing research on families of gifted children and the impact the gifted child had on siblings and parents as well as common instructional and programming themes teachers discussed regarding the gifted child. The researchers expected to find overlapping themes when discussing the parents’ perspective of the parent-teacher relationship and the teachers’ perspective of the teacher-parent relationship. The co-researchers used confidential, on-going interviews with five parents of gifted children and four teachers of gifted students. Parents identified and teachers supported the existence of a lack of curricular support for gifted students; however, teachers reported inadequate funding as the major obstacle. Both parents and teachers concluded that a positive parent-teacher relationship improved the learning environment which warranted efforts to increase the communication between the parent and teacher to foster relationships. Terry A. W. (2003). Effects of service learning on young, gifted adolescents and their community. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(4), 295-308. doi 10.1177/001698620304700406 The researcher used a case study of a rural middle school to evaluate the effectiveness of service learning on gifted adolescents in the community. She supported her claims with an overview of the learning service models used in schools and the presentation of the K-12 Developmental Service Learning Typology. Terry examined the effects of the Community Action service learning project of the Learn and Serve America program. Using the CPS method with 28 gifted middle school students, Terry implemented observation and interviews to gather data.


The impact on students showed an increase in student development (empowerment and positive attitudes) and allowed the teacher to serve as a facilitator, rather than the authority in the classroom. Researcher bias suggested a greater margin of error, yet implications of the study call for additional research on authentic learning, service opportunities, and the education of the gifted.


McBee, M. T. (2004). The classroom as laboratory: An exploration of teacher research. Roeper Review, 27(1), 52-58. McBee made the case that the disconnection between research-based practices and actual teacher activity resulted in sub-optimal classroom practices. One of the main reasons that teachers did not access research is that it either seemed inaccessible due to a lack of training in statistics or experimental design or through lack of practical application as research did not always relate well to the classroom experience. The exploration suggested that better communication methods between researchers and educators to improve classroom performance by making research accessible and applicable to the practicing teacher who might then participate in teacher research, giving voice to the classroom teacher to the realm of research. Collaborative research could increase overall teacher satisfaction and reduce burn out. Such action research created a greater sense of teacher involvement in educational academia and increased the buy-in interests of teachers to incorporate research into their practices which could result in greater classroom gains. Brighton, C. M. (2001). Stronger than apart: Building better models through collaboration and Interconnection. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(3), 163-166. Brighton posed poses the challenge to 21

st century scholars and researchers: to develop and

create an integrated curriculum and set of options for the gifted student. Instead of focusing on one model, i.e., acceleration, enrichment, and problem-focused studies, Researchers needed to align and synchronize data of existing models. Interconnected approaches to link existing proposals would help educators and administrators make more purposeful decisions. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Johnsen, S. K. (2007). Teacher education standards for the field of gifted education: A division of coherence for personnel preparation in the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 182-205. doi 10.1177/0016986207299880 The study reviewed the 2008 NAGC-CEC standards in gifted education and explained what the standards meant and how the standards could be used for institutional and program reviews. The NAGC task force was created to ensure collaboration with CEC-TAG board approval. The reviews of the 10 CEC content standards established the need for higher institutions of learning to meet the challenge of preparing future teachers to teach gifted children. While VanTassel-Baska and Johnsen asserted “standards reduce divergence in a field,” they acknowledged the inconsistencies in teacher preparation, as only 18 states mandated teacher preparation in gifted education. Van Tassel-Baska and Johnsen observed “the field is only as strong as the linkages among state policies, university preparation of personnel, and local practice” (p. 192). Standards helped ensure this linkage.


Hébert, T. P., & Sergent, D. (2005). Using movies to guide: Teachers and counselors collaborating to support gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 28(4), 14-25. Hébert and Sergent expressed the need of gifted students to receive additional support in the


school district. Often the gifted facilitator would not have the human resources to adequately meet the needs of a heavy caseload of gifted students In this case, classroom teachers could help the gifted student cope and tackle the difficulties through a process similar to bibliotherapy by using movies which portrayed characters gifted students might relate to. Schools could create eating an environment of support between the teacher, student, and gifted facilitator who would enjoy the movie or literature together. Viewing high quality movies with gifted students can reinforce appropriate societal messages contained in the guided curriculum. A model classroom guided movie lesson is provided. Guided viewing of movies was also a strong way to connect with parents as the parents could visit the classroom for a positive experience where they would explore important issues with their children. Landrum, M. S. (2002). Consultation in gifted education: Teachers working together to serve students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Landrum established resource consultation and collaboration as an alternative means of structuring gifted service delivery to the gifted student. Landrum addressed shortcomings of the traditional “pull-out” model used by many schools today. She listed eight troubling questions demonstrating in inadequacy of the traditional model and proposed a solution: the Resource Consultation and Collaboration Program which Landrum piloted in Charlotte, North Carolina. Landrum became the project consultant for the Talent Development Program in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. The program utilized the gifted teacher as a collaborative resource for general education teachers, counselors, administrators, local community, and stakeholders. Landrum’s model expanded the role of gifted services by reducing direct (pull-out) services and increasing the gifted specialist’s role as a consultant and team member in general education. For example, the gifted facilitator encouraged and supported differentiated curriculum, sharing responsibilities for the delivery of gifted services with the general education teachers. Collaboration with fellow professionals was an essential and continual component Landrum’s model. Gifted teachers might also be called upon to create in-service curriculum for their school. Lobbying at any political level could fall within their responsibility. This book delineated all of the steps necessary to change a school’s current gifted service delivery model to the Resource Consultation and Collaboration Program advocated by Landrum. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli and Reis developed a model for gifted education that was flexible, theoretical, and innovative. They explored basic assumptions by questioning what made gifted students “gifted” as an important first step and advocate examining what teachers, districts, families, communities, and states believe about “gifted and talented.” The Schoolwide Enrichment Model, although it may not be universally practiced, is widely known in the field of gifted and talented and has widely influenced gifted education programs in the United States and requires significant collaboration. There are three types of enrichment: Type I Exploratory Activities, Type II Group Training Activities, and Type III Individual and Small Group Investigation of Real Problems. The underlying beliefs of districts determine how gifted programs are funded in each district and state. Renzulli and Reis encouraged graduate institutions to prove that their educational models produce higher levels of learning. They also pressed for more and different assessments to prove what works in the field of gifted education. Everything teachers in the “real world” might want or need to implement the model was available for all the nuts and bolts in user-friendly designed finished products to help teachers who often felt overwhelmed and underfunded in their classroom practice.



Standard # GTS6S3:

Plan and provide consultation; educational programs for parents, administrators, and community; and professional development services for varied audiences.

18. References:


Melber, L. M. (2003). Partnerships in science learning: Museum out-reach and elementary gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(4), 251-285. DOI: 10.1177/001698620304700402 Melber made a strong case for reform in our approach to teaching science in our schools. She argued for a more effective partnership between schools and informal institutions such as museums, zoos, and factories. Citing research indicating a gender difference in perceived attitudes about science and science careers, Melber developed an outreach program with a Los Angeles museum and an elementary school. The study used a four-point Likert scale to measure fourth and fifth grade students responses, and 68% of the participants were female. Melber focused on gifted students as strong candidates for future scientists. To determine pre- and post-test attitudes toward science, understanding the science field, and content knowledge, Melber administered questionnaires to both students and parents. To substantiate claims, Melber cited the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) and the Benchmarks for Science Literacy established by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Melber stated that a lack of science instruction in public schools resulted in a decline in scientific proficiency among all students. The voluntary outreach program between the museum and the school used inquiry-based activities to parallel the work of museum science. She acknowledged study limitations and called for on-going discussion to improving science instruction, especially as it pertained to academically gifted students. Her findings suggested interactive programs such as the voluntary enrichment study increased interest in exploration in science exploration and encouraged additional research in voluntary partnerships. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Lee, S. Y (2004). Parent perceptions of effects of the Saturday Enrichment Program on gifted students' talent development. Roeper Review, 26(3), 156-165. Most research has found the need for gifted student enrichment and acceleration needs in the regular classroom. Olszewski-Kubilius and Seon-Young Lee reported that regular education failed to offer the variety of educational opportunities offered in gifted education programs. They cited Bloom's (1985) landmark case study to support their position that outside-of-school enrichment and acceleration programs were needed to develop talents and skills of gifted learners. The authors incorporated Csikszentmihalyi's theory of flow and Renzulli's Enrichment Triad Model into a summer enrichment program with productive results. The study was detailed, carefully outlined, and included tables, flowcharts, and a reproducible list of research questions. The researchers advocated for out-of-school enrichment and acceleration programs for gifted learners. Pearl, P. (1997). Why some parent education programs for parents of gifted children succeed and others do not. Early Child Development and Care, 130, 41-48. Pearl found some parental support programs designed to ease the transition into the gifted education program succeeded and some failed. Her work presented a sound understanding of the dynamics of the parent, child, and gifted education program personnel. She observed d


parents needed more information and additional skills regarding the gifted education including: (a) relevancy, (b) teaching techniques used, (c) teaching characteristics, and (d) practical considerations. These interactive categories met the needs of inquiring parents of gifted learners. She concluded by suggesting parents, teachers, schools, administrators, and community include gifted students themselves in the collaborative process of strengthening gifted programs.


Kirschenbaum, R. J., Armstrong, D. C., & Landrum, M. (1999). Resource consultation model in gifted education to support talent development in today's inclusive schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(1), 39-40. doi 10.1177/001698629904300105 Kirschenbaum, Armstrong, and Landrum discussed the shift from pull-out gifted programs to services for gifted students within the regular classroom. The gifted facilitator might now work as a resource consultant and collaborator to provide services that complement rather than conflict with the regular education teacher. The researchers discussed the resistance of some regular education teachers yet claimed that when sharing responsibilities and using the consultation model, all students and teachers could benefit within the inclusive school setting. The collaborative model examined used process-based sharing of responsibility for the education of gifted students. The study highlighted factors of consultation effectiveness, consultee variables, barriers to such a program, and included suggestions to effectively implement a school consultation model. Limburg-Weber, L. (1999/2000). Send them packing: Study abroad as an option for gifted students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11(2), 43-51. If used appropriately, a Study Abroad experience could enrich not only a gifted student’s language abilities, but also develop maturity, enhance self reliance, and increase independence. Studies have suggested that when individuals encountered diversity enhances creativity and the awareness of cultures. Limburg-Weber pointed out that while further research was important, it was important to acknowledge the intangible rewards of a Study Abroad experience. Difficulties in demonstrating a clear increase in language acquisition and proficiency existed due to a lack of standardized testing for language proficiencies for many languages. However, the author advocated for the Study Abroad experience as a “living language and culture laboratory,” ideally suited for gifted students who might handle the experience at a younger age than non-exceptional age peers. Limburg-Weber suggested gifted students consider applying for competitive scholarships to cover abroad costs. Advanced planning was a must for the Study Aboard experience as a collaborative effort between educators, parents, and gifted students. Parker, J. P. (1996). NAGC standards for personnel preparation in gifted education: A brief history. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(3), 158-164. Parker examined the issue of standards in gifted education and delineated attempts to create and effectively use standards, beginning with NAGC in 1980. The NAGC standards were important to teacher education programs in that they specified what teachers should know and created attainable teacher outcomes for developing talent among students. The standards’ scope and two primary purposes were outlined and a definition for “giftedness” was reached through consensus. To effectively serve the gifted populace, it was important that teachers were guided by standards to ensure quality education. Stephens, K. R. (1999). Parents of the gifted and talented: The forgotten partner. Gifted Child Today, 22(5), 38-43, 52.


Stephens highlighted possible concerns of relationships with a study of the family of a gifted student. The study found parental needs included information about the characteristics of gifted students, how to interpret intelligence tests, how to assist their gifted child, training in communicating with educators about their students needs, and information about college planning. Parents could form support groups, read printed material about gifted children, attend workshops or conferences, or consult with the gifted facilitator at the school. Strategies to create positive working relationships between the parent and educator of the gifted student are highlighted. Communication lines should always be open as a child’s home environment was a powerful factor in their motivation to learn. Parents might serve as volunteers and mentors and should receive adequate time and effort during parent-teacher conferences. Teacher education programs needed provide coursework on how to properly communicate with parents and parents of a gifted child.

,


Dettmer, P., Thurston, L. P., Knackendoffel, A., & Dyck, N. J. (2009). Collaboration, consultation and teamwork for students with special needs (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Intended for pre-service or graduate level teachers, this resource has proven useful and relevant as a classic textbook on collaboration. The authors defined three primary roles: collaborator, consultant, and team-teacher. Although used primarily for traditional special educational teachers, i.e., learning disabilities, behavior disorders, hearing-impaired, etc., professionals engaged in teaching gifted and talented students could benefit from this resource as the dynamics of communication needed were similar for most teachers. The authors did refer to the education of high ability students throughout the book and stated that NCLB (No Child Left Behind) should not equate to NCHB (No Child Held Behind). In addition, the number of twice exceptional students has been growing over the years due to better identification. Teachers of the gifted and talented must increasingly communicate as a consultant with all stakeholders. As consultants, teacher specialists needed to adapt the message according to the intended group. Attention must be given to the nuances contained in the communication between two people from different cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. The role of a teacher consultant included advocacy at the local, state, national, and international forums. Since the dynamics of communication could prove challenging, the authors delineated the hazards, provided numerous real-world examples, and offered solutions with wit and empathy. Altogether, this textbook was an excellent guide for both the novice and experienced teacher of the gifted and talented. Hughes, C. E., & Murawski, W.A. (2001). Lessons from another field: Applying co- teaching strategies to gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(3), 195-2004. Doi 10.1177/001698620104500304 The study found gifted students often did not receive the differentiated instruction that would make classroom materials appropriate for their abilities in the general education classroom; however, there had been an emphasis in the educational pedagogy to call upon the regular education environment to incorporate instruction which provided appropriate services for gifted students. Collaborative methods such as co-teaching that have been adapted from traditional special education to facilitate appropriate service for gifted students. Hughes and Murawski redefined collaboration in gifted education as “a style for interaction that includes dialogue, planning, shared and creative decision making, and follow-up between at least two coequal professionals with diverse expertise, in which the goal of the interaction is to provide appropriate services for students, including high-achieving and gifted students” (p. 196). Little, C. A. (2001). Probabilities and possibilities: The future of gifted education. Journal of secondary gifted education, 12(3), 166-169.


Gifted education was likely to become a field driven in part by technology as an advancing force, but should also remain focused on vertical and horizontal alignment of curriculum to ensure that gifted students were learning and offered challenge at every level. Little found that as our populace continues to diversify, “curriculum should be at the center of our thinking about education” (p. 167). Differentiated instruction and curriculum alignment would be a key to meeting the needs of our diverse, talented students. Little cautions that standards should be not used as a “ceiling” for gifted learners, but rather as a “starting point.” To accomplish these tasks, gifted facilitators should strive to assist the classroom teacher, offer workshop options, collaborated with the teachers, and directly counsel the gifted students. Little noted that we would have to emphasize the attitudes and skills of teachers and develop partnerships with colleagues and community to create schools where children were always challenged and stimulated. Strip, C., & Hirsch. G. (2001). Trust and teamwork: The parent-teacher partnership for helping the gifted child. Gifted Child Today, 24(2), 26-30, 64. The relationship triangle between parents, students, and teachers was essential to learning motivation; however, too often parents and teachers encountered an adversarial relationship, even though both groups often had the same goals. The authors recommended 10 principles to provide appropriate services for gifted children and explained them from a collaborative teacher-parent perspective. Alignment of mutual goals between parents, students, and teachers required the ability to perceive the situation from other group’s perspectives. The researchers emphasized the importance of building trust through honest, polite, and positive discourse. The authors viewed the parent-teacher relationship as essential to creating opportunities for success. They offered strategies and tips to help parents and teachers function as a collaborative team.

Documents

Gt Advanced Standards Research