User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > The Journal Of Secondary Gifted Education > Volume 12 |  Issue 3 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Abeel, l. B., Callahan, C, M., & Hunsaker, S. L. (1994). The use of published tests in the identification of gifted students. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
  • Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans.
  • Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. J. (1995). Middle schools and their impact on talent development. In Council for Exceptional Children (Ed.), In balance: Gifted education and middle schools (pp. 17–30). Reston, VA: Editor.
  • Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Longitudinal interventions: Virtues and limitations. American Behavioral Scientist, 34, 431–439.
  • Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
  • Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Huff, D. (1954). How to lie with statistics. New York: Norton.
  • Hunsaker, S. L., & Callahan, C. M. (1993). Evaluation of gifted programs: Current practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 190–200.
  • Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1982). Effects of cooperative and individualistic instruction on the achievement of handicapped, regular, and gifted students. Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 227–283.
  • Kaplan, S. N. (1979). Inservice training manual: Activities for developing curriculum for the gifted/talented. Ventura, CA: Ventura Superintendent of Schools.
  • Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay.
  • Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York: Collier.
  • Margolin, L. M. (1994). Goodness personified: The emergence of gifted children. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gryuter.
  • Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to the U.S. Office of Education, 2 vols. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (Government Documents, Y4.L 11/2: G36).
  • Matthews, J. (2000, December 5). Teaching beyond the middle. The Washington Post, A22.
  • Meeker, M. N. (1969). The structure of intellect: Its interpretation and uses. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
  • Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Passow, A. H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented: A point of view. In Ventura Superintendent of Schools (Ed.), Curricula for the gifted and talented: Selected proceedings of the first national conference on curricula for the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: Editor.
  • Patton, M. Q. (1981). Creative evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model. A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Whethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for total talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1995). Building a bridge between gifted education and total school improvement (RBDM 9502). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Smith, L. H. (1978). The compactor. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Slavin, R, (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 347–350.
  • Slavin, R. (1990). Ability grouping, cooperative learning, and the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 3–8.
  • Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (Eds.). (1991). The academic acceleration of gifted children. New York: Teachers College.
  • Stanley, J. C., Keating, D. P., & Fox, L. H. (Eds.). (1974). Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic approach to human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (1995). A triarchic approach to giftedness. (Research monograph 95126). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Educational and psychological perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
  • Tomlinson, C. A. (1995a). Gifted learners and the middle school: Problem or promise? In Gifted education and middle schools (pp. 31–34). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
  • Tomlinson, C. A. (1995b). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Winebrenner, S. (1992). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
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 12
  •  Issue 3
  • Publication Date: Spring 2001



Fourth Down and Inches

Carolyn M. Callahan

Just as there are critical moments and plays in any sports contest, there are critical times in educational decision making when the actions of leaders must be sufficiently creative and forceful to propel a field forward with enough force to sustain a drive toward desired goals. The new millennium appears to be a time when the field of gifted education very much needs leadership to capitalize on the gains we have made during the past three decades. Like a football team that has utilized every strategy in its game plan to march down the field for a touchdown and finds itself just inches from the goal, the field of gifted education has taken numerous actions that have resulted in great progress for the field, and it now stands poised for a major score. However, like the football team facing a formidable defense, gifted education still faces many obstacles to the realization of its goals. Some of the barriers to success have been imposed by others, but there have been (and still are) times when we have been our own worst enemy, when we have created the penalties that have moved us backward rather than forward.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.