User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 32 |  Issue 2 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Adler, M. J. (1998). The Paideia proposal: An educational manifesto. New York: Touchstone.
  • Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Minor, L. L. (1990). Cognitive profile of verbally and mathematically precocious students: Implications for identification of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 21–26.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1982). Consequences in high school and college of sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: A longitudinal perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 598–622.
  • Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 1–19). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Borland, J. H., Schnur, R., & Wright, L. (2000). Economically disadvantaged students in a school for the academically gifted: A post-positivist inquiry into individual and family adjustment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 13–32.
  • Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164–171.
  • Brody, L. E., Assouline, S. G., & Stanley, J. C. (1990). Five years of early entrants: Predicting successful achievement in college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 138–142.
  • Brody, L. E., & Stanley, J. C. (2005). Youths who reason exceptionally well mathematically and/or verbally: Using the MVT: D4 model to develop their talents. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 20–37). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, S. W., Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Zhang, W., & Chen, C. H. (2005). Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 68–79.
  • Callahan, C. M. (1982). Myth: There must be “winners” and “losers” in identification and programming! Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 17–19.
  • Callahan, C. M. (2001). Fourth down and inches. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12, 148–156.
  • Callahan, C. M., & Miller, E. M. (2005). A child-responsive model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 38–51). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Clark, B. (2001). Growing up gifted: Developing potential at school and in the home (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2005). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
  • Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
  • Cramond, B., & Martin, C. E. (1987). Inservice and preservice teachers’ attitudes toward the academically brilliant. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 15–19.
  • Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2003). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
  • Duke, D. L. (2003). The challenges of educational change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Duke, D. L. (2005). Education empire: The evolution of an excellent suburban school system. Albany: The State University of New York Press.
  • Fink, A. (1995a). How to analyze survey data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Fink, A. (1995b). How to sample in surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Fink, A. (1995c). The survey handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Ford, D. Y. (2003). Two other wrongs don’t make a right: Sacrificing the needs of diverse students does not solve gifted education’s unresolved problems. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 283–291.
  • Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Gagné, F. (1983). Perceptions of programs for gifted children: Agreement on principles but disagreement over modalities. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 7, 113–127.
  • Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
  • Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13–23.
  • Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). The science and politics of intelligence in gifted education. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 25–40). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Helfer, J. A., & Schroth, S. T. (2007, Spring). Seeing and seeing as: The challenges in the identification of gifted children. Conceptual Foundations, 15(1), 12–17.
  • Kaplan, S. N. (2005). Layering differentiated curricula for the gifted and talented. In F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd ed., pp. 107–131). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  • Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Benbow, C. P., Assouline, S. G., & Brody, L. E. (2003). Talent searches: Meeting the needs of academically talented youth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 204–218). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented, Volume 1. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparative procedure (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 246–255.
  • Mönks, F. J., & Katzko, M. W. (2005). Giftedness and gifted education. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 187–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Moon, T. R., & Callahan, C. M. (2001). Curricular modifications, family outreach, and a mentoring program: Impacts on achievement and gifted identification in high-risk primary students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 305–321.
  • Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Reis, S. M., & Small, M. A. (2005). The varied and unique characteristics exhibited by diverse gifted and talented learners. In F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd ed., pp. 3–35). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1982). Myth: The gifted constitute 3–5% of the population. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 11–;14.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relationship to the development of social capital. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 75–;87). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (1986). The legacy and logic of research on the identification of gifted persons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 20–23.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The schoolwide enrichment model: Developing creative and productive giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 184–;203). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Rimm, S. (1984). The characteristics approach: Identification and beyond. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 181–;187.
  • Schroth, S. T. (2007). Levels of service. In C. M. Callahan & J. A. Plucker (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 281–;294). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  • Schroth, S. T., & Helfer, J. A. (2008). Urban school districts’ enrichment programs: Who should be served? Journal of Urban Education, 5(1), 7–;17.
  • Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 52, 149–;174.
  • Stanley, J. C. (1980). On educating the gifted. Educational Researcher, 9(3), 8–;12.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Beyond g: The theory of successful intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? (pp. 447–;479). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Giftedness according to the theory of successful intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 88–99). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The WICS model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 327–342). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 45–59). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C. M., & Lelli, K. M. (1997). Challenging expectations: Case studies of high-potential, culturally diverse young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(2), 5–17.
  • Tomlinson, C. A., Gould, H., Schroth, S. T., & Jarvis, J. (2006). Multiple case studies of teachers and classrooms successful in supporting academic success of high potential low economic students of color (Research Monograph No. 06220). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
  • Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J., Leppien, J., & Burns, D. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Torrance, E. P. (1984). The role of creativity in identification of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 153–156.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2005). An analysis of gifted education curricular models. In F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd ed., pp. 75–105). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., & Evans, B. L. (2007). Patterns of identification and performance among gifted students identified through performance tasks: A three-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 218–231.
  • Volker, M. A. (2006). Reporting effect size estimates in school psychology research. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 653–672.
  • Von Károlyi, C., Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple intelligences: A perspective on giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 100–112). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Worrell, F. C., Szarko, J. E., & Gabelko, N. H. (2001). Multi-year persistence of nontraditional students in an academic talent development program. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12, 80–89.
  • Wortham, S. C. (2008). Assessment in early childhood education (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
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 32
  •  Issue 2
  • Publication Date: Winter 2008
  • Page Number(s): 155-179
  • DOI: 10.4219/jeg-2008-850



Identifying Gifted Students: Educator Beliefs Regarding Various Policies, Processes, and Procedures

Stepen T. Schroth and Jason A. Helfer

Issues regarding the identification of gifted students have perplexed the field almost since its inception. How one identifies gifted students has tremendous ramifications for a gifted education program’s size, curriculum, instructional methods, and administration. Little is known, however, regarding educator beliefs regarding gifted identification methods. The current national study surveyed 900 public school educators regarding which identification methods they supported. The educators believed that standardized tests, portfolios of student work, and teacher nominations were valid means of identification but did not support parent or peer nominations. Statistically significant differences existed between administrators and gifted education specialists, on the one hand, and regular classroom teachers, on the other hand, regarding the usefulness of standardized test scores and teacher nominations as methods of identifying students for gifted programs. Such results are potentially valuable to school administrators, gifted education specialists, and regular classroom teachers who work with gifted students.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.