Talented & Gifted:
Working with High Achievers
|
Instructor Name: |
Dr. Pamela Bernards |
|
Phone: |
509-891-7219 |
|
Office Hours: |
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST
Monday - Friday |
|
Email: |
pamela_bernards@virtualeduc.com |
|
Address: |
Virtual Education
Software |
|
|
23403 E Mission Avenue,
Suite 220F |
|
|
Liberty Lake, WA 99019 |
|
Technical Support: |
Introduction
Welcome
to
Talented & Gifted, an interactive computer-based
instruction course designed to help you achieve a better understanding of the
talented and gifted student, methods used in identification, and strategies for
instruction of these students in an inclusive classroom. Talented & Gifted provides information on the history of
the exceptional in relation to education, current law, and accepted methods for
referral, assessment, and identification of these students. The course also
covers methods of differentiating instruction to meet the rate and level of
learning of those students identified. The course gives you an understanding of
ways to meet the affective needs of the gifted and talented student in the
regular classroom.
This computer-based instruction course is a self-supporting
program that provides instruction, structured practice, and evaluation all on
your home or school computer. Technical support information can be found, in the Help section of your course.
|
Title: |
Talented & Gifted: Working with High Achievers |
|
Publisher: |
Virtual Education
Software, inc. 2002, Revised 2008, Revised 2010, Revised 2014, Revised 2017,
Revised 2020 |
|
Instructor: |
Dr. Pamela Bernards, Ed.D. |
Academic Integrity
Statement
The structure and format of most distance-learning
courses presume a high level of personal and academic integrity in completion
and submission of coursework. Individuals enrolled in a distance-learning
course are expected to adhere to the following standards of academic conduct.
Academic Work
Academic work submitted by the individual (such as papers,
assignments, reports, tests) shall be the student’s own work or appropriately
attributed, in part or in whole, to its correct source. Submission of
commercially prepared (or group prepared) materials as if they are one’s own
work is unacceptable.
Aiding Honesty in Others
The individual will encourage honesty in others by
refraining from providing materials or information to another person with
knowledge that these materials or information will be used improperly.
Violations of these
academic standards will result in the assignment of a failing grade and
subsequent loss of credit for the course.
Level of Application
This course is designed to be an informational course with
application in work or work-related settings. The intervention strategies are
designed to be used with gifted and talented students ranging in age from
approximately five years to early adolescence. Some alterations may be needed
if working with younger children.
Expected Learning Outcomes:
Upon
successful completion of this course, students will:
·
Have become familiar with common practice
in relation to identification of and service to gifted and talented students
·
Have gained working knowledge of common
school practices in the identification of TAG process
·
Be familiar with tools used in assessment
for identification purposes in TAG education
·
Have learned techniques for assessing
level and rate of learning
·
Be familiar with the characteristics and
needs of typical talented and gifted students
from special populations
·
Be able to select appropriate programming
based upon individual student needs
·
Have gained a working knowledge of common
models of delivery of instruction that meet TAG needs
·
Become familiar with methods of
differentiating curriculum for talented and gifted students
·
Have developed an understanding of the
social and emotional needs of TAG students (affective domain)
Course Description
Talented
& Gifted provides information on the history of the exceptional
student in relation to education, current law, and accepted methods for
referral, assessment, and identification of these students. Included are major
program models and methods of differentiating instruction to meet the rate and
level of learning of identified gifted students. Meeting the affective needs of
the gifted and talented student in the classroom is emphasized.
Due to the structure of this course, it
is suggested that you complete each section in order. The course will allow you
to move ahead to various chapters, but completing the course out of sequence
may cause difficulty with your understanding of the materials. It will also
make it more difficult to pass the examinations and the course itself.
Student Expectations
As a student you will be
expected to:
·
Complete all four information sections showing a
competent understanding of the material presented in each section.
·
Complete all four section examinations, showing a
competent understanding of the material presented. You
must obtain an overall score of 70%
or higher, with no individual exam score below 50%, to pass this course. *Please note: Minimum exam
score requirements may vary by college or university; therefore, you should refer
to your course addendum to determine what your minimum exam score requirements
are.
·
Complete a review of any
section on which your examination score was below 50%.
·
Retake any examination,
after completing an information review, to increase that examination score to a
minimum of 50%, making sure to also be achieving an overall exam score of a
minimum 70% (maximum of three attempts). *Please
note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by college or university;
therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to determine what your
minimum exam score requirements are.
·
Complete a course
evaluation form at the end of the course.
Course Overview
Chapter One: What Does Gifted &
Talented Mean?
If you’ve ever had a
highly gifted student in your classroom, you certainly know what a blessing or
what a handful that child can be. Sometimes you may think there is no way to
keep up with this student while meeting the educational needs of all the others
in your classroom. This student might challenge you at every turn, might decide
to “just get by,” or might become a real joy for you to work with. This chapter
will help you start to identify characteristics of gifted and talented students
in order to be a more effective teacher.
Chapter Two: Identification &
Assessment
The identification and
assessment of talented and gifted students can be controversial. For that
reason, we will look at several sources to gain information about identifying
talented and gifted students. If these seem contradictory at times, you will
start to understand the controversy.
Chapter Three: Curriculum &
Modifications
One of the myths of
teaching gifted students is that you can just give them harder work, or more
work. More accurately, as with any student who learns differently, we need to
look at differentiating the curriculum. We differentiate curriculum for our
students who are considered special education, for our students who are learning
English as they are learning content—why not for our gifted students? We will
spend time in this section of the course looking at ways to differentiate the
curriculum.
Chapter Four: Resources for Parents
This chapter of the course consists
entirely of public domain documents for parents of talented and gifted
children. These will contain valuable information for you in the classroom.
However, the primary purpose of this chapter is to give you resources that you
have freedom to copy and give to parents. All of these
documents contain valuable information.
Examinations
At the end of each chapter, you will be
expected to complete an examination designed to assess your knowledge. You may
take these exams a total of three times. Your last score will save, not the
highest score. After your third attempt,
each examination will lock and not allow further
access. Your final grade for the course
will be determined by calculating an average score of all exams. This score will be printed on your final certificate. As this is a
self-paced computerized instruction program, you may review course information
as often as necessary. You will not be able to exit any examinations until you
have answered all questions. If you try to exit the
exam before you complete all questions, your information will be lost. You are
expected to complete the entire exam in one sitting.
Instructor Description
Pamela Bernards
has 39 years of combined experience in diverse PK–8 and high school settings as
a teacher and an administrator. In addition to fulfilling these
responsibilities, she was the founding director of a K–8 after-school care
program and the founder of a preschool program for infants to four-year-olds.
When she was a principal, her school was named a U.S. Department of Education
Blue Ribbon School of Excellence in 1992, as was the school at which she served
as curriculum coordinator in 2010. She most recently served as the Director of
Professional Development at a National Catholic Educational Association. Areas
of interest include curriculum, research-based teaching practices, staff
development, assessment, data-driven instruction, and instructional intervention
(remediation and gifted/talented). She received a doctorate in Leadership and
Professional Practice from Trevecca Nazarene University.
Contacting the Instructor
You may contact the instructor by emailing pamela_bernards@virtualeduc.com or by calling (509) 891-7219, Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. PST.
Phone messages will be answered within 24 hours. Phone
conferences will be limited to ten minutes per student, per day, given that
this is a self-paced instructional program. Please do not contact the
instructor about technical problems, course glitches, or other issues that
involve the operation of the course.
Technical Questions
If you have questions or problems related to the operation
of this course, please try everything twice. If the problem persists
please check our support pages for FAQs and known issues at www.virtualeduc.com and also the Help section of your
course.
If you need personal assistance
then email support@virtualeduc.com or call (509) 891-7219. When contacting technical support, please
know your course version number (it is located at the bottom left side of the
Welcome Screen) and your operating system, and be
seated in front of the computer at the time of your call.
Minimum Computer Requirements
Please refer to VESi’s website: www.virtualeduc.com or contact VESi if you have further
questions about the compatibility of your operating system.
Refer to the addendum regarding Grading Criteria, Course
Completion Information, Items to be Submitted and how to submit your completed
information. The addendum will also note any additional course assignments that
you may be required to complete that are not listed in this syllabus.
Bibliography
(Suggested
Readings)
Ackerman, P. L. (1993). Learning and individual
differences: An ability/information processing framework for skill acquisition.
Final Report, Contract N00014–89-J-1974, Office of Naval Research,
Arlington, VA. doi:10.1037/e476532004-001
Ackerman, P. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Glaser, R. (Eds.).
(1999). Learning and individual
differences: Advances in theory and research. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
Adderholdt-Elliott, M., & Goldberg, J.
(1999). Perfectionism—What’s bad about
being good? Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
Adelson, J. L., McCoach, D. B., & Gavin, M. K. (2012).
Examining the effects of gifted programming in math and reading using the
ECLS-K. Gifted Child Quarterly,
56, 25–39. doi:10.1177/0016986211431487
Anderson, J. R. (2013). The architecture of cognition.
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian,
P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich,
P. R., Raths, J., . . . Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Association for Childhood Education International. (2010).
No Child Left Behind: The inadvertent costs for high-achieving and gifted
students [Report]. Childhood Education,
87(1). doi:10.1080/00094056.2010.10521436In
Assouline, S., Colangelo, N., Vantessell-Baska, J., Sharp, M. (2015). A nation
empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest
students. Iowa City: The Belin-BlankCenter.
Banks, J. A. (1993). An
introduction to multicultural education: Theory and practice. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Banks, J. A., & McGee Banks, C. A. (2015). Multicultural education: Issues and
perspectives (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Berlin, J. E. (2009). It’s all a matter of perspective:
Student perceptions on the impact of being labeled gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 31(4), 217–223. doi:10.1080/02783190903177580
Boazman, J. (2017). The meaning of gifts and talents: Framing the elements for flourishing.
Arlington, VA: National Catholic Educational Association.
Boothe, D., & Stanley, D. (2004). In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted
education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Breen, A. (2019). Renowned educator and scholar Carol
Tomlinson defined a new way of teaching. Curry School News. Retrieved
from https://curry.virginia.edu/news/renowned-educator-and-scholar-carol-tomlinson-defined-new-way-teaching
Brown, E. F., & Abernathy, S. H. (2009). Policy
implications at the state and district level with RtI
for gifted students. Gifted Child Today,
32(1), 52–57. doi:10.1177/107621750903200311
Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What
one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the
Raven Progressive Matrices test. Psychological
Review, 97(3), 404–431. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.404
Castellano, J. A., & Diaz, E. I. (2002). Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented
education for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Cawelti, G. (n.d.). Consequences of the educational policies of the Reagan administration. Retrieved
from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1370&;context=eandc
Cohen, L. M., & Frydenberg, E. (2007). Coping for capable kids: Strategies for
parents, teachers and students (Updated ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.,
& Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A
nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Templeton National Report on
Acceleration. University of Iowa, Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education
& Talent Development. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535137.pdf
Coleman, M. R. (2005). Academic strategies that work for
gifted students with learning disabilities. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 38(1), 28–32. doi:10.1177/004005990503800105
Coleman, M. R., Buysse, V., & Neitzel, J. (2007). Establishing the evidence base for an
emerging early childhood practice: Recognition and response. In V. Buysse & P. W. Wesley (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in the early childhood field (pp. 117–159).
Washington, DC: ZERO TO THREE Press.
Coleman, M. R., & Johnson, S. (2011). RtI for gifted students: A CEC-TAG educational
resource. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Coleman, M. R., & Johnson, S. (2013). Implementing RtI with gifted students: Service models, trends, and
issues. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Commission on No Child Left Behind. (2007). Beyond NCLB:
Fulfilling the promise to our nation’s children. Roeper Review, 26, 121–123.
Conlan, T. J. (1984). The politics of federal
block grants: From Nixon to Reagan. Political
Science Quarterly, 99, 247–270. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2150404
Crain, W. (2011). Theories
of development: Concepts and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cross, T. L., & Frazier, A. D. (2010). Guiding the
psychosocial development of gifted students attending specialized residential
STEM schools. Roeper Review, 32(1), 32–41.
Daniels, S., & Piechowski, M.
M. (2009). Living with intensity.
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Davidson, B., & Davidson, J. (2004). Genius denied:
How to stop wasting our brightest young minds. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster.
Deno, S. L. (2002). Problem solving as best
practices. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school
psychology (4th ed., pp. 37–56). Bethesda, MD: National Association of
School Psychologists.
Dixon, F., & Moon, S. M. (2014). The handbook of
secondary gifted education (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Duke, M. P., Nowicki, S., & Martin E. A. (1996). Teaching
your child the language of social success.
Atlanta, GA: Peachtree.
Eddles-Hirsch, K., Vialle, W., Rogers, K. B., & McCormick, J. (2010).
“Just challenge those high-ability learners and they’ll be all right!” The
impact of social context and challenging instruction on the affective
development of high-ability students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22,
106–128. doi:10.1177/1932202X100220
Elementary and Secondary Education
Consolidation Act of 1981, §1103.
Erwin, O. E., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Best practices in
identifying students for gifted and talented education programs. Journal of Applied School Psychology 27(4),
319–340. doi:10.1080/15377903.2011.615817
Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., & Colangelo, N. (2013). Twice
exceptional learners: Who needs to know what? Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3),
169–180. doi:10.1177/00169862134900
Forstadt, L. (2009). Living with intensity:
Understanding the sensitivity, excitability, and emotional development of
gifted children, adolescents, and adults. Roeper Review, 31(2), 130–131.
Gagné , F. (1985). Giftedness and talent:
Reexamining a reexamination of the definition. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3),
103–112. doi:10.1177/00169862850290
Gagne, F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to
exceptional human abilities. In K. A. Hellar, F. J. Mönks, & A.H. Passow (Eds.), International
handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 69–87).
New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent:
A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper
Review, 18, 103–111. doi:10.1080/02783199509553709
Gagné, F. (1999). Is there any light at the
end of the tunnel? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 191–234.
Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into
talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15, 119–147. doi:10.1080/1359813042000314718
Gagné, F. (2009). Building gifts into
talents: Detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0. In B. MacFarlane & T. Stambaugh
(Eds.), Leading change in gifted education: The festschrift of Dr. Joyce Van
Tassel-Baska (pp. 61–80). Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.
Gagné, F. (2012). Building gifts into
talents: Brief overview of the DMGT 2.0. Retrieved
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287583969_Building_gifts_into_talents_Detailed_overview_of_the_DMGT_20
Galbraith, J., & Delisle, J. (2015). When gifted kids
don’t have all the answers: How to meet their social and emotional needs. Minneapolis,
MN: Free Spirit.
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its
laws and consequences. London, England: McMillan and Company.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and practice. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (2009). Five minds for the future.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Gardner, H. & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences
go to school: Educational implications of the theory
of multiple intelligences. Educational
Researcher, 18(8), 4–10.
Gifted and Talented Children’s Education Act of 1978, §901,
20 U.S.C. 3311.
Goddard, H. H. (1911). Two thousand normal children measured
by the Binet measuring scale of intelligence. Pedagogical Seminary, 18(2),
232–259. doi:10.1080/08919402.1911.10532788
Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C.
(2014). Exceptional leaders: An
introduction to special education (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Henshon, S. E. (2009). Talent development
across the lifespan: An interview with Paula Olszewski-Kubilius.
Roeper Review, 31(3), 134–137. doi:10.1080/02783190902993482
Hess, K. K., Jones, B. S., Carlock, D., & Walkup, J. R.
(2009, March 9). Cognitive rigor: Blending the strengths of Bloom’s taxonomy
and Webb’s Depth of Knowledge to enhance classroom-level processes.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517804.pdf
Horn, J. L. (1999). Cognitive diversity: A framework for
learning. In P. L. Ackerman, R. J. Sternberg, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Learning and individual differences:
Advances in theory and research (pp. 61–116). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
Johnsen, S. K. (2008). Identifying gifted and talented
learners. In F. A. Karnes & K. R. Stephens (Eds.), Achieving excellence: Educating gifted and talented (pp. 135–153).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Johnsen, S. K. (2009). Best practices for identifying gifted
students. Principal, 88(5), 8–14.
Johnsen, S. K. (2011). Making decisions about placement. In
S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted
students: A practical guide (pp. 107–131). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Jolly, J. L. (2009). A resuscitation
of gifted education. American Educational
History Journal, 36(1/2), 37–53.
Jolly, J. L. (2014). Building gifted education: One state at
a time. Gifted Child Today. 37, 128–130.
Jolly, J. L. & Makel, M.
(2010). No Child Left Behind: The inadvertent costs for high-achieving students
and gifted students. Childhood Education,
87, 35–40. doi:10.1080/00094056.2010.10521436
Jolly, J. J., & Robins, J. H. (2016). After the Marland Report: Four decades of progress? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2),
132–150. doi:10.1177/0162353216640937
Kaufman, S. B. (2013). Ungifted: Intelligence redefined.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kerr, B. (2005). Smart
girls: A new psychology of girls, women and giftedness.
Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
Kerr, B., & Cohn. S. (2001). Smart boys: Talent, manhood and the search for meaning. Scottsdale,
AZ: Great Potential Press.
Kirk, S. A., Gallagher, J. J., Anastasiow,
N. J., & Coleman, M. R. (2015). Educating
exceptional children. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Krute︠t︡skĭi, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities
in schoolchildren (J. Teller, Trans., J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup, Eds.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Levande, D. (1999). Gifted readers and reading
instruction. Hoagies’ Gifted Education Page. Retrieved from https://www.hoagiesgifted.org/levande.htm
Loertscher, D. (2008). Using the national gifted
education standards for university teacher preparation programs/using the
national gifted education standards for pre-K–12 professional development. Teacher Librarian, 36(1), 52–53.
Lohman, D. F. (1989). Human intelligence: An introduction to
advances in theory and research. Review
of Educational Research, 59(4), 333–374. doi:10.3102/00346543059004333
Lohman, D.F. (1993). Teaching and testing to develop fluid
abilities. Educational Researcher, 22(7), 12–23.
doi:10.3102/0013189X022007012
Malone, D. (2015, April 7). Cognitive rigor in lesson
planning: Where Bloom’s Taxonomy and Webb’s DOK meet. Edgenuity.
Retrieved from https://blog.edgenuity.com/cognitive-rigor-in-lesson-planning-where-blooms-taxonomy-and-webbs-dok-meet/
Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the
gifted and talented (Report to the Subcommittee on Education, Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare, US Senate). Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office.
Marshalek, B., Lohman, D. F., & Snow, R. E.
(1983). The complexity continuum in the radex and
hierarchical models of intelligence. Intelligence,
7, 107–127. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(83)90023-5
McClain, M., & Pfeiffer, S. (2012). Identification of
gifted students in the united states today: a look at
state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 28, 59–88. doi:10.1080/15377903.2012.643757
Mellard, D., Byrd, S., Johnson, E., Tollefson,
J., & Boesche, J. (2004). Foundations and
research on identifying model responsiveness to intervention sites. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 27, 1–14. doi:10.2307/1593676
Miller, B. H. (2016). Theories of developmental
psychology. New York, NY: Worth.
Milner, J., Coker, C. P., Buchanan, C., & Newsome, D.
(2009). Accountability that counts. Clearing
House, 82(5), 237–243.
doi:10.3200/TCHS.82.5.237-243
Missett, T. C., Brunner, M. M., Callahan, C.
M., Moon, T. R., & Azano, A. P. (2014). Exploring teacher beliefs and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and
formative assessment. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 37(3), 245–268. doi:10.1177/0162353214541326
Morawaka, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2009).
Parenting gifted and talented children: Conceptual and empirical foundations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 164–173.
doi:10.1177/0016986209334962
NAGC [National Association for Gifted Children]. (2005). The
history of gifted and talented education. Retrieved from http://people.uncw.edu/caropresoe/GiftedFoundations/EDN%20552/NAGC%20-%20History%20of%20g-t.htm
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Redefining
giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm. Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Redefining%20Giftedness%20for%20a%20New%20Century.pdf
NAGC. (2019a). NAGC
pre-k–grade 12 gifted programming standards: A blueprint for quality gifted
education programs. Washington, DC: Author.
NAGC. (2019b). What is a Javits
Grant? Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/blog/what-javits-grant
NAGC. (n.d.a). Frequently asked
questions about the Common Core and gifted education. Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/timely-topics/common-core-state-standards-national-science-0
NAGC. (n.d.b). Identification.
Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices/identification
NAGC. (2020a). NAGC statement on Administration’s FY2021
budget. Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/file/pressrelease/NAGC%20Statement%20on%20Proposed%20FY2021%20Budget.pdf
NAGC. (2020b). TALENT Act. Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/get-involved/advocate-high-ability-learners/nagc-advocacy/federal-legislative-update/talent-act
National Association for Gifted Children and Council of
State Directors of Programs for Gifted. (2015). State of the states: A report by the National Association for Gifted
Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for Gifted, 2014–2015.
Washington, DC: Author.
National Association of State Directors of Special
Education. (2007). Response to
intervention: Research for practice. Alexandria, VA: Author.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
National Defense Education Act of 1958, Pub. L. No 85–865, §
72 Stat. 1580 (1958).
National Science Foundation Act of 1950, Pub. L. No 81–507,
§ 64 Stat. 149 (1950).
Newman, J. L., Gregg, M., & Dantzler, J. (2009). Summer
enrichment workshop (SEW): A quality component of the University of Alabama’s
gifted education preservice training program. Roeper Review, 31(3),
170–184. doi:10.1080/02783190902993995
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. §6301 (2001).
Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented
individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4),
280–282. doi:10.1177/0016986209346946
Purcell, J. & Eckert, R. (2006). Designing services and
programs for high-ability learners. National Association for Gifted Children.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press..
Ratcliff, N. J., Jones,
C. R. Costner, R. H., Knight, C. Disney, G., Savage-Davis, E., … Hunt, G. H.
(2012). No need to wait for Superman: A case study of one unique high school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 391–411.
doi:10.1177/01623532124592
Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted
Education, and Talent Development. (2017). Schoolwide
Enrichment Model (SEM). Retrieved from http://gifted.uconn.edu/schoolwide-enrichment-model/
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness?
Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60,
180–184. doi:10.1177/00317217110920
Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is this thing
called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five
year perspective. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 23, 3–54. doi:10.1177/016235329902300102
Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of
giftedness: Building a bridge to the new century. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal 10(2), 67–75.
doi:10.1207/S15327035EX1002_2
Renzulli, J. S. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and
talented constitute one single homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of
being that stays in the person over time and experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4),
233–235. doi:10.1177/0016986209346824
Renzulli, J., Reis, S., Baum, S., & Betts,
G. (2009). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and
talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Ricci, M. C. (2017). Equitable identification processes. TAG Update, Winter 2017, 1 and 7–10.
Retrieved from http://cectag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/FINAL_TAG-Update_Winter-2017.pdf
Roberts, J. L., & Inman, T. F. (2015). Strategies for differentiating instruction: Best practices in gifted education. An evidence-based guide.
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Robinson, A. (2009). Myth 10: Examining the ostrich: Gifted
services do not cure a sick regular program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4),
259–261. doi:10.1177/0016986209346935
Rollins, K., Mursky, C. V.,
Shah-Coltrane, S., & Johnsen, S. K. (2009). RtI
models for gifted children. Gifted
Children Today, 32(3), 21–30.
doi:10.1177/107621750903200308
Rost, D. H. (2008). Hochbeganbung
– Fakten and Fiktion. In
H. Ulrich & S. Strunck (Eds.), Begabtenförderung an Gymnasium Entwicklungen, Befunde, Perspektiven [Fostering gifted students at secondary
schools: Development, results, and perspectives] (pp. 44–50). Wiesbaden,
Germany: Springer.
Rost, D. H. (2009). Intelligenz – Falkten und Mythen [Intelligence – Facts
and myths], Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
Rotigel, J., & Fello, S. (2004). Mathematically gifted students:
How can we meet their needs? Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 46–51.
doi:10.4219/gct-2004-150
Russo, C. J. (2001). Unequal educational opportunities for gifted
students: Robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29, 727–758.
Sak, U. (2009). Test of the three-mathematical minds (M3)
for the identification of mathematically gifted students. Roeper Review, 31(1),
53–67. doi:10.1080/02783190802527372
Schindler, M., & Rott, B.
(2017). Networking theories on giftedness—What we can learn from synthesizing Renzulli’s domain general and Krute︠t︡skĭi’s mathematics-specific
theory. Education Sciences, 7(6). doi:10.3390/educsci7010006
Schroth, S. T., & Helfer, J. A. (2009).
Practitioners’ conceptions of academic talent and giftedness: Essential factors
in deciding classroom and school composition. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(3),
384–407. doi:10.1177/1932202X0902000302
Slocumb, P. D., & Payne, R. K. (2015). Removing the mask: How to identify and
develop giftedness in students from poverty. Highland, TX: Aha Process.
Shaughnessy, M. F. (Ed). (2010). Reading in 2010: A comprehensive review of a changing field. New
York, NY: Nova.
Shaughnessy, M. F. (2014). A reflective conversation with
Joe Renzulli and Sally Reis: About the Renzulli learning system. Gifted Education International. 30(1), 24–32.
doi:10.1177/0261429413480419
Sisk, D. (1980). Issues and future directions in gifted
education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(1), 29–32.
doi:10.1177/001698628002400106
Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Wisdom,
intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond
IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Death, taxes, and bad intelligence
tests. Intelligence, 15(3), 257–269.
doi:10.1016/0160-2896(91)90035-C
Sternberg, R. J. (1992). Ability tests, measurements, and
markets. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(2), 134–140. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.84.2.134
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubillus,
P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A
proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54.
doi:10.1177/1529100611418056
Swanson, J. D., & Lord, E. W. (2013).
Harnessing and guiding the power of policy: Examples from one state’s
experiences. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 36, 198–219. doi:10.1177/0162353213480434
Tannenbaum, A. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In
N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook
of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 45–59). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence.
Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press.
Thomson, D., & Olszewski-Kubilius,
P. (2014). The increasingly important role of off-level
testing in the context of the talent development perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 51–68.
doi:10.1177/10762175135096
Tomlinson, C.
A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the
elementary grades. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary
and Early Childhood Education.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). What is differentiated instruction?
LD Online. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/263/
Trail, B. A. (2011). Twice-exceptional
gifted children: Understanding, teaching, and counseling gifted students.
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Trawick-Smith, J. (2013). Early childhood development: A multicultural perspective. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
University of Connecticut (2020). The National Research
Center on the gifted and talented (1990–2013). Retrieved from https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/
University of Virginia. (2020). The National Center for
Research on gifted education. Retrieved from https://curry.virginia.edu/faculty-research/centers-labs-projects/national-center-research-gifted-education
U.S. Department of Education. (1993, October). National
excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Publishing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Title IX—Provisions.
Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg107.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2019). Jacob K. Javits Gifted
and Talented Students Education Program: Purpose. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/javits/index.html
U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. (2014).
Civil rights data collection: Data snapshot (College and Career Readiness).
Issue brief no. 3. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-college-and-career-readiness-snapshot.pdf
VanTassel-Baska, J. L. (2009). Patterns and profiles of promising learners from poverty. Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J. L., Cross, T. L., & Olenchak, F. R. (2009). Social-emotional
curriculum with gifted and talented students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J. L., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Comprehensive
curriculum for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Weselby, C. (2020). What is differentiated
instruction? Examples of how to differentiate in the classroom. Retrieved from https://resilienteducator.com/classroom-resources/examples-of-differentiated-instruction/
Wood, S., & Estrada-Hernandez, N. (2009). Psychosocial
characteristics of twice-exceptional individuals: Implications for
rehabilitation practice. Journal of
Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 40(3),
11–18. doi:10.1891/0047-2220.40.3.11
Yekovich, F. R. (1994). Current issues in
research on intelligence. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 4(4). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol4/iss1/4
Yun Dai, D., & Chen,
F. (2013, July). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search
of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 151–168. doi:10.1177/00169862134900
Zettel, J. J. (1982). The education of gifted and talented students from a
federal perspective. In J. Ballard, B. Ramirez, F. J. Wientraub
(Eds.), Special Education in America: Its
legal and governmental foundations (pp. 51–64). Reston, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children.
Zirkel, P. A., & Stevens, P. L. (1987). The law concerning public
education of gifted students. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 10, 305–322. doi:10.1177/016235328701000408
Additional
Sources:
http://www.davidsongifted.org/search-database/entry/a10250
https://oedb.org/ilibrarian/50-essential-links-for-the-parents-of-gifted-children/
https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/
https://www.prodigygame.com/main-en/blog/webbs-depth-of-knowledge-dok
https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources-parents/parent-tip-sheets
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/math/cresource/q1/p01/
Course content is updated every three years. Due to this update timeline,
some URL links may no longer be active or may have changed. Please type the
title of the organization into the command line of any Internet browser search
window and you will be able to find whether the URL link is still active or any
new link to the corresponding organization’s web home page.
11/5/20 jn