Research Base - NAGC

Kitano, M. K. (2003). What’s missing in gifted education reform. . In J. Borland (Ed.). Rethinking giftededucation (pp. 143-158). NY: Teachers College Press.Kitano suggests that professionals must confront problems that contribute to inequity in educationaloutcomes. These include overt and subtle discrimination in identification, instruction, and the world of work.Potential solutions include constructivist approaches with scaffolding and direct instructional support toeliminate individual and institutional bias.Lovecky, D. V. (1997). Identity development in gifted children: Moral sensitivity. Roeper Review, 20, 90-94.Gifted children show advanced moral development compared to others of their age. However, thisdevelopment can be influenced by external influences. The need to be accepted by peers will cause studentsto incorporate others’ opinions as their own. The author asserts that gifted children need guidance regardinghow and when to take unpopular stands against peer pressure.Ross, P. O. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.This report describes the challenges that gifted education faces in a society that tends to value brawn andbeauty over brains and equity over excellence. A new definition for gifted education emerges that focuses onthe importance of talent development.Stormont, M., Stebbins, M. S., & Holliday, G. (2001). Characteristics and educational support needs ofunderrepresented gifted adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 413-423.Three groups of underrepresented gifted populations are young women, adolescents with learningdisabilities, and youth who live in poverty. Societal biases and pressures and/or lack of resources such aspoverty make these students at-risk for being overlooked. These students need assistance in careerexploration, planning, and support for aspirations.Practice-based ReferencesOlszewski-Kubilius, P., & Laubscher, L. (1996). The impact of a college-counseling program on economicallydisadvantaged gifted students and their subsequent college adjustment. Roeper Review, 18, 202-208.Fifty-five urban high school students were compared to a group of economically advantaged students whoparticipated in a special summer program. Most of the students were Black or Hispanic (61%). The lowerSES students changed their plans to finance college as a result of the program. Researchers found in thepre-college phase, economically advantaged and disadvantaged gifted students differ only slightly in theiraspirations, dreams, expectations and perceptions about college. However, in college, lower SES studentswere more likely to have been employed as freshman, and perceived a declining level of support fromteachers and a lonely feeling on campus.Standard 1: FoundationsGT1K7Key issues and trends, including diversity and inclusion, that connect general, special, andgifted education.Research-based ReferencesLarsen, M.D., Griffin, N.S., & Larsen, L.M. (1994). Public opinion regarding support for special programs forgifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 131-142.This study examined the public debate regarding the devotion of resources and development of GT servicesin public schools. A telephone survey of 1,000 adults consisted of 844 were parents of school-aged children19