instruments, provides technical information for more than 40 assessments that are frequently used in giftededucation, examines the identification process, and reviews methods for evaluating the identificationprocedure.Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States bythe U.S. commissioner of education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.This report defines giftedness in six categories: general intellectually ability, specific aptitude, creative orproductive thinking, leadership ability, visual and performing arts, and psychomotor ability.Passow, A. H., & Frasier, M. M. (1994). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority anddisadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18, 198-202.This article offers guidelines in identifying giftedness in underserved populations: (a) no single “theory ofgiftedness” exists; (b) “schoolhouse giftedness” should be nurtured; (c) GT behaviors appear in differentforms; (d) talents are culturally imbedded; (e) talents of minority children aren’t of a different order nor of alower standard; (f) identification and cultivation of talent is integrated; (g) sociocultural context should beconsidered; (h) culture interacts with the environment; (i) resources and segregation have an impact; (j) erron the side of over-inclusion; (k) focus on talent identification and development; (l) examine talent withinminority groups; and (m) apply the model to all students.Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of giftedness: Building a bridge to the new century.Exceptionality, 10(2), 67-75.Renzulli describes the definition of giftedness moving from a conservative view to a more liberal one. Insteadof measuring giftedness by cognitive performance, a broader range of performance areas is now considered.Renzulli’s original three-ring conception of giftedness focused on above-average ability, task commitment,and creativity. <strong>Research</strong> is needed regarding traits that produce academic and creative giftedness, theinteraction of different areas of giftedness, and young people at work in demanding learning situations. Socialcapital and empathy are emerging areas of interest in defining giftedness.Simonton, D. K. (2000). Genius and giftedness: Same or different. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J.Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.) International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 111-121). New York:Elsevier.Simonton discusses the complexities in the process by which potential talent is converted into actual talent.His research asks two important questions: Why do so many gifted children fail to realize their potential uponbecoming adults? Why is it that many highly successful adults managed to display no clear signs ofgiftedness in their early years? He recommends that a comprehensive theory of talent development mustaddress both of these questions.Stephens, K. R., & Karnes, F. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. ExceptionalChildren, 66, 219-238.This article provides an overview of the evolution of the federal definition of gifted and talented and resultsfrom a national survey to determine each state’s definition. Five states have completely eliminated theirstates’ definitions and three states leave the responsibility of defining giftedness to the local school districts.The authors point out the threat of instability and consistency. Factors such as the trend to identify moreunderrepresented groups and the amount of state funding allotted to services for the gifted may influencedefinitions of giftedness.Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Ed.)(2006). Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.The authors describe the major conceptions of gifted and how they apply to identification, instruction, and theassessment of gifted students. Represented conceptions include Brody and Stanley, Callahan and Miller,Cross and Coleman, Feldhusen, Gagné, Reis, Renzulli, Robinson, Runco, Simonton, Sternberg, Subotnikand Jarvin, VanTassel-Baska, Winner, Wahlberg and Paik.6
U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.The federal Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act provided a general definition of giftedness aschildren with outstanding talent. “Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the potential forperforming at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience,or environment. These children and youth exhibit high performance capability in intellectual, creative, and/orartistic areas, possess an unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They requireservices or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools.” (p. 26)U.S. Congress, Public Law 91-230, April 1970.The Educational Amendments of 1969 contained one of the first federal definitions of giftedness: “The term‘gifted and talented children’ means in accordance with objective criteria prescribed by the Commissioner,children who have outstanding intellectual ability or creative talent, the development of which requires specialactivities or services not ordinarily provided by local education agencies.” This was later revised andbroadened by Sidney Marland (1972).Practice-based ReferencesBorland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students.Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164-171.This article describes Project Synergy, a procedure for identifying economically disadvantaged, potentiallygifted kindergarten students in urban schools. The approach emphasized the development of site-appropriatemethods such as multicultural curriculum-based enrichment activities, classroom observations, portfolioassessment, teacher nominations, dynamic assessment, a literature-based activity, a child interview, and theconcept of best performance. It de-emphasized the use of standardized tests.Johnsen, S., & Ryser, G. (1994). Identification of young gifted children from lower income families. Gifted andTalented International, 9(2), 62-68.This study examined the relationship among measures used in the identification for a summer program of 50gifted and talented four to seven-year-old children from lower income families. Approximately 38% wereHispanic. Identification procedures included parent nomination, teacher nomination, products, the TorranceTest of Creative Thinking, the Screening Assessment for Gifted Elementary Students—Primary Version. Thethree best predictors of future achievement were the SAGES-P Reasoning, the parent checklist, and theteacher checklist.Jatko, B. P. (1995). Action research and practical inquiry: Using a whole class tryout procedure for identifyingeconomically disadvantaged students in three socioeconomically diverse schools. Journal for the Educationof the Gifted, 19, 83-105.This author conducted research addressing the identification and selection of economically disadvantagedgifted students for participation in the TAG Future Problem Solving program. An action research, wholeclassroomapproach was used to evaluate fourth grade students at three elementary schools (1 affluentcommunity, 1 lower-middle income, and 1 extremely low income) who had no previous experience with theFPS program. The author states that this technique can be an effective tool for educators in increasing thenumber of economically disadvantaged children in a TAG program, but ultimately, the students are the majorbeneficiaries of the services.Kitano, M. K., & Espinosa, R. (1995). Language diversity and giftedness: Working with gifted Englishlanguage learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 234-254.This article summarizes research on language diversity and giftedness, recommending new strategies foridentification: a developmental program that “evokes” a gifted student’s potential; a broader conceptualizationof intelligence; alternative constructs of giftedness; and assessment models developed for specificpopulations. In addition, English language learners tend to profit from primary language instruction during theearly grades followed by a two-way bilingual program for upper level elementary gifted students.Recommended instructional strategies include student-centered approaches, emphasis on language7
- Page 3 and 4: This book provides a survey of fede
- Page 5: Castellano, J. A. (1998). Identifyi
- Page 9 and 10: This qualitative investigation expl
- Page 11 and 12: four as “unsuccessful.” A child
- Page 13 and 14: from a comparison school district.
- Page 15 and 16: Cross and Coleman, Feldhusen, Gagn
- Page 17 and 18: Books, and Talents Unlimited. Teach
- Page 19 and 20: Kitano, M. K. (2003). What’s miss
- Page 21 and 22: Russo, C. J., & Ford, D. Y. (1993).
- Page 23 and 24: CEC Knowledge/Skills Evidence-BaseR
- Page 25 and 26: Piechowski, M. M. (1992). Giftednes
- Page 27 and 28: 14-18 in a competitive gifted progr
- Page 29 and 30: Many students of color are not perf
- Page 31 and 32: Bloom, B. S., & Sosniak, L. A. (198
- Page 33 and 34: the academic achievement of 273 ele
- Page 35 and 36: Silverman, L. K. (1997). The constr
- Page 37 and 38: Milbrath, C. (1998). Patterns of ar
- Page 39 and 40: differentiated instruction, student
- Page 41 and 42: condition. (adapted from the journa
- Page 43 and 44: Practice-based ReferencesCline, S.
- Page 45 and 46: Literature/Theory-based ReferencesB
- Page 47 and 48: This book focuses on ways teacher c
- Page 49 and 50: students; and compared the learning
- Page 51 and 52: Standard 3: Individual Learning Dif
- Page 53 and 54: This edited volume delineates couns
- Page 55 and 56: Literature/Theory-based ReferencesA
- Page 57 and 58:
schools (one affluent community, on
- Page 59 and 60:
Gagné’s Differentiated Model of
- Page 61 and 62:
considerations in planning a sound
- Page 63 and 64:
Stamps, L. (2004). The effectivenes
- Page 65 and 66:
and menus.Standard 4: Instructional
- Page 67 and 68:
determining the central purpose or
- Page 69 and 70:
Swiatek, M. A. (1993). A decade of
- Page 71 and 72:
applications and theoretical modeli
- Page 73 and 74:
curricular dimensions that are resp
- Page 75 and 76:
Standard 4: Instructional Strategie
- Page 77 and 78:
CEC Knowledge/Skills Evidence-BaseR
- Page 79 and 80:
Perry, T., Steele, C. & Hilliard, A
- Page 81 and 82:
competence and superior adjustment
- Page 83 and 84:
challenging and provocative arena.
- Page 85 and 86:
the influence of verbal skills on p
- Page 87 and 88:
perceived as positive. (ERIC abstra
- Page 89 and 90:
Christophersen, E., & Mortweet, S.
- Page 91 and 92:
Standard 5: Learning Environments a
- Page 93 and 94:
practical advice for all classroom
- Page 95 and 96:
Kerr, B., & Cohn, S. (2001). Smart
- Page 97 and 98:
CEC Knowledge/Skills Evidence-BaseR
- Page 99 and 100:
Standard 6: Language and Communicat
- Page 101 and 102:
Practice-based ReferencesGavin, M.
- Page 103 and 104:
This article focuses on recommended
- Page 105 and 106:
This study was designed to measure
- Page 107 and 108:
Standard 6: Language and Communicat
- Page 109 and 110:
The authors conclude that more targ
- Page 111 and 112:
Standard 6: Language and Communicat
- Page 113 and 114:
Standard 7: Instructional PlanningG
- Page 115 and 116:
The four parallel approaches to cur
- Page 117 and 118:
suggested curriculum or supplementa
- Page 119 and 120:
Part of the Gifted Treasury Series,
- Page 121 and 122:
Prufrock Press.This teacher-friendl
- Page 123 and 124:
introductory chapter, individual ch
- Page 125 and 126:
all individuals and it improves sel
- Page 127 and 128:
Both of these books outline how to
- Page 129 and 130:
Standard 8: AssessmentGifts and Tal
- Page 131 and 132:
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.The
- Page 133 and 134:
contribution of dynamic assessment
- Page 135 and 136:
School District's advocacy efforts.
- Page 137 and 138:
students not using the unit.Literat
- Page 139 and 140:
identification of more economically
- Page 141 and 142:
Standard 8: AssessmentGT8S2Use tech
- Page 143 and 144:
eviews the literature related to pr
- Page 145 and 146:
Practice-based ReferencesCallahan,
- Page 147 and 148:
CEC Knowledge/Skills Evidence-BaseR
- Page 149 and 150:
Standard 9: Professional and Ethica
- Page 151 and 152:
Standard 9: Professional and Ethica
- Page 153 and 154:
excellence and equity in education.
- Page 155 and 156:
culturally diverse students. Journa
- Page 157 and 158:
Standard 9: Professional and Ethica
- Page 159 and 160:
elated to giftedness and the prepar
- Page 161 and 162:
Americans (n=580). Approximately 50
- Page 163 and 164:
Standard 10: CollaborationGifts and
- Page 165 and 166:
Sixty-three Latina women (43 doctor
- Page 167 and 168:
Standard 10: CollaborationGT10S1Res
- Page 169 and 170:
associations, burnout, and resource
- Page 171 and 172:
activities with insects and arthrop
- Page 173 and 174:
“kids can make a difference!”St
- Page 175 and 176:
Rash, P. K. (1998). Meeting parents
- Page 177 and 178:
Standard 10: CollaborationGT10S4Col
- Page 179 and 180:
the interface with general educatio
- Page 181 and 182:
for gifted Hispanic LEP students an
- Page 183 and 184:
student portfolios, the Torrance Te
- Page 185:
Parker, J. (1996). NAGC standards f