User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 30 |  Issue 4 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Bain, S. K., Choate, S. M., & Bliss, S. L. (2006). Perceptions of developmental, social, and emotional issues in giftedness: Are they realistic? Roeper Review, 29, 41–48..
  • Belcastro, F. P. (1987). Elementary pull-out programs for the intellectually gifted—boon or bane? Gifted Child Quarterly, 9, 97–103.
  • Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
  • Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. J. (1995). The successful blending of gifted education with middle schools and cooperative learning: Two studies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 362–384.
  • Cross, T. L. (2002). Competing with myths about the social and emotional development of gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 25, 44–45.
  • Delisle, J. (1994). The top ten statements that should never again be made by advocates of gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 17, 34–35.
  • Derevensky, J., & Coleman, E. B. (1989). Gifted children’s fears. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 65–68.
  • Feldhusen, J. F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 6–11.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., & Kroll, M. D. (1991). Boredom or challenge for the academically talented in school. Gifted Education International, 7, 80–81.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students: Issues and concerns. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 63–67.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., Proctor, T. B., & Black, K. N. (2002). Guidelines for grade advancement of precocious children. Roeper Review, 24, 170–171.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., Sayler, M. F., Nielsen, M. E., & Kolloff, P. B. (1990). Self-concepts of gifted children in enrichment programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 380–387.
  • Fiedler, E. D., Lange, R. E., & Winebrenner, S. (2002). In search of reality: Unraveling the myths about tracking, ability grouping, and the gifted. Roeper Review, 24, 108–111.
  • France-Kaatrude, A., & Smith, W. P. (1985). Social comparison, task motivation, and the development of self-evaluative standards in children. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1080–1089.
  • Freeman, J. (2001). Gifted children grown up. London, UK: David Fulton.
  • Galbraith, J. (1985). The eight great gripes of gifted kids: Responding to special needs. Roeper Review, 8, 15–17.
  • Grant, B. (2002). Justifying gifted education: A critique of needs claims and a proposal. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 359–374.
  • Kenny, D. A. (1995). The effects of group composition on gifted and non-gifted elementary students in cooperative learning groups. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.
  • Kulik, J. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 13–22). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
  • Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1984). Synthesis of research on effects of accelerated instruction. Educational Leadership, 42, 84–89.
  • Kunkel, M. A., Chapa, B., Patterson, G., & Walling, D. D. (1992). Experience of giftedness: “Eight great gripes” six years later. Roeper Review, 15, 10–14.
  • McDevitt, T. M., & Ormrod, J. E. (2002). Child development and education: A custom edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
  • Neber, H., Finsterwald, M., & Urban, N. (2001). Cooperative learning with gifted and high-achieving students: A review and meta-analyses of 12 studies. High Ability Studies, 12, 199–214.
  • Oglesby, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1983). Teacher-pupil ratios, instructional time, and expenditure estimates for three administrative strategies for educating gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 57–63.
  • Olenchak, F. R., & Renzulli, J. S. (2004). The effectiveness of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model on selected aspects of elementary school change. In C. A. Tomlinson (Ed.), Differentiation for gifted and talented students (pp.17–37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Paulus, P. (1984). Acceleration: More than grade skipping. Roeper Review, 7, 98–100.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 2–14.
  • Robinson, N. M. (2004). Effects of academic acceleration on the social-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 59–68). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
  • Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Shore, B. M., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (1996). Effective curricular and program practices in gifted education and the interface with general education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 138–154.
  • Smith, K., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1982). The effects of cooperative and individualistic instruction on the achievement of handicapped, regular, and gifted students. Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 277–283.
  • Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Fiscus, E. D. (1989). Practitioner objections to the academic acceleration of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 29–35.
  • Sternberg, R. (1996). Neither elitism nor egalitarianism: Gifted education as a third force in American education. Roeper Review, 18, 261–263.
  • Strop, J. (2002). Meeting the social emotional needs of gifted adolescents: A personal and contextual journey. Understanding Our Gifted, 14, 7–11.
  • Swiatek, M. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). Ten-year longitudinal follow-up of ability-matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 528–538.
  • Tannenbaum, A. J. (1998). Programs for the gifted: To be or not to be. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 3–36.
  • Thorkildsen, T. A. (1994). Some ethical implications of communal and cooperative approaches to gifted education. Roeper Review, 17, 54–57.
  • Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Differentiation for gifted and talented students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., et al. (2004). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of the literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 119–145.
  • Tomlinson, C. A., Tomchin, E. M., Callahan, C. M., Adams, C. M., Pizzat-Tinnin, P., Cunningham, C. M., et al. (2004). Practices of preservice teachers related to gifted and other academically diverse learners. In C. A. Tomlinson (Ed.), Differentiation for gifted and talented students (pp. 191–208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Educational decision making on acceleration and grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 68–72.
  • Vaughn, V. L., Feldhusen, J. F., & Asher, J. W. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 92–98.
  • Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 30
  •  Issue 4
  • Publication Date: Summer 2007



Serving Children Who Are Gifted: Perceptions of Undergraduates Planning to Become Teachers

Sherry K. Bain, Stacy L. Bliss, Stephani M. Choate, and Katherine Sager Brown

Seeking information about preconceived notions of the educational needs of children who are gifted, we asked 285 undergraduates in prerequisite classes for teacher education to complete questionnaires. Topics addressed included the need for special services for children who are gifted, perceptions of forms of service delivery in elementary schools, and egalitarian versus elitist issues in gifted education. Preferences among our respondents fell in favor of services carried out in general classroom settings at elementary schools, reflecting egalitarian attitudes. We found misconceptions, compared to empirical evidence, for notions about tutoring practices and academic acceleration. In their response rates to items, undergraduates previously served as gifted differed only occasionally from those not served as gifted. We discuss implications of our findings in terms of the need for proponents of gifted programs to address some misconceptions that appear to be related to school reform and appropriate services for children who are gifted.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.