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%, and successfully complete ALL writing assignments 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 all course
journal article and essay writing assignments with the minimum word count shown
for each writing assignment.
·
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 course section, 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. The average from your exam scores
will be printed on your certificate.
However, this is not your final grade since your required writing
assignments have not been reviewed.
Exceptionally written or poorly written required writing assignments, or
violation of the academic integrity policy in the course syllabus, will affect
your grade. 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.
Writing Assignments
All assignments are
reviewed and may impact your final grade. Exceptionally or poorly written
assignments, or violation of the Academic Integrity Policy (see course syllabus
for policy), will affect your grade. Fifty percent of your grade is determined
by your writing assignments, and your overall exam score determines the other
fifty percent. Refer
to the Essay Grading Guidelines which were sent as an attachment with your
original course link. You should also
refer to the Course Syllabus Addendum which was sent as an attachment with your
original course link, to determine if you have any writing assignments in
addition to the Critical Thinking Questions (CTQ) and Journal Article
Summations (JAS). If you do, the Essay
Grading Guidelines will also apply.
Your writing assignments
must meet the minimum word count and are not to include the question or your
final citations as part of your word count.
In other words, the question and citations are not to be used as a means to meet the minimum word count.
Critical Thinking
Questions
There
are four CTQs that you are required to complete. You will need to write a minimum of 500
words (maximum 1,000) per essay. You should explain how the information
that you gained from the course will be applied and clearly convey a strong
understanding of the course content as it relates to each CTQ. To view the questions, click on REQUIRED
ESSAY and choose the CTQ that you are ready to complete; this will bring up a
screen where you may enter your essay. Prior
to course submission, you may go back at any point to edit your essay, but you
must be certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits.
You must click SAVE before you write another essay or
move on to another part of the course.
Journal Article
Summations
You are required to
write, in your own words, a summary on a total of three peer-reviewed or
scholarly journal articles (one article per JAS), written by an author with a
Ph.D., Ed.D. or similar, on the topic outlined within each JAS section in the
“Required Essays” portion of the course (blogs,
abstracts, news articles or similar are not acceptable). Your article choice
must relate specifically to the discussion topic listed in each individual
JAS. You will choose a total of three relevant articles (one article per
JAS) and write a thorough summary of the information presented in each article
(you must write a minimum of
200 words with a 400 word maximum per JAS). Be sure to provide
the URL or the journal name, volume, date, and any other critical information
to allow the facilitator to access and review each article.
To
write your summary, click on REQUIRED ESSAYS and choose the JAS that you would
like to complete. A writing program will automatically launch where you can
write your summary. When you are ready to stop, click SAVE. Prior to course submission you may go back at
any point to edit your summaries but you must be
certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits. For more information
on the features of this assignment, please consult the HELP menu.
You must click SAVE before you write another summary or
move on to another part of the course.
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