Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:34:07.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

34 - Identifying and Serving Gifted and Talented Students

from Part VII - Special Populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

By
Paula Olszewski-Kubilius ,
Frank C. Worrell  and
Rena F. Subotnik
Edited by
Frank C. Worrell ,
Tammy L. Hughes  and
Dante D. Dixson
Frank C. Worrell
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Tammy L. Hughes
Affiliation:
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh
Dante D. Dixson
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, we address identifying and serving students with academic potential and promise. We briefly review the literature on racial and socioeconomic gaps at the highest levels of achievement (i.e. excellence gaps) and how schooling does little to close them. We then present a framework for talent development that moves gifted education from a singular focus on the identification of children already displaying high levels of accomplishment to a greater focus on providing services that develop potential talent in the form of increased opportunities to learn. We review promising identification practices and program models that serve a broader range of gifted learners.

Keywords

giftedtalentedlow-incomeidentification
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Applied School Psychology , pp. 598 - 612
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2003). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools (Working Paper 2002–28). Chicago, IL: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.Google Scholar
Adelson, J. L., Dickinson, E. R., & Cunningham, B. C. (2016). A multigrade, multiyear statewide examination of reading achievement: Examining variability between districts, schools and students. Educational Researcher, 45, 258–262. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16649960Google Scholar
Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Shoplik, A. (Eds.). (2015). A nation empowered. Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.Google Scholar
Bromberg, M., & Theokas, C. (2014). Falling out of the lead: Following high achievers through high school and beyond. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Retrieved from https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FallingOutoftheLead.pdfGoogle Scholar
Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Oh, S. (2014). National surveys of gifted programs: Executive summary 2014. Retrieved from www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/key%20reports/2014%20Survey%20of%20GT%20programs%20Exec%20Summ.pdfGoogle Scholar
Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2015). Can universal screening increase the representation of low income and minority students in gifted education? (NBER Working Paper No. 21519)? Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w21519Google Scholar
Carman, C. A., Walther, C. A. P., Bartsch, R. A. (2018). Using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 7 Nonverbal Battery to identify the gifted/talented: An investigation of demographic effects and norming plans. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752097Google Scholar
Curran, F. C., & Kellogg, A. T. (2016). Understanding science achievement gaps by race/ethnicity and gender in kindergarten and first grade. Educational Researcher, 45, 273–282. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16656611Google Scholar
De Brey, C., Musu, L., McFarland, J. et al. (2019). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2018 (NCES 2019-038). US Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019038.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dixson, D. D., Worrell, F. C., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Subotnik, R. F. (2016). Beyond perceived ability: The contribution of psychosocial factors to academic performance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13210Google Scholar
Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (Eds.). (2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, school and children’s life chances. Executive Summary. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Engle, P. L., & Black, M. M. (2008). The effects of poverty on child development and educational outcomes. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1136, 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1425.023Google Scholar
Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., et al. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/teaching-adolescents-become-learners-role-noncognitive-factors-shaping-schoolGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A., Marchman, V. A., & Weisleder, A. (2013). SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science, 16, 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12019Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. A., & Gallagher, J. J. (2013). Using problem-based learning to explore unseen academic potential. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning, 7. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1322Google Scholar
Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Hamilton, R., et al. (2018, June). Exploratory study on the identification of English learners for gifted and talented programs. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Center for Research on Gifted Education. Retrieved from https://ncrge.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/982/2018/06/NCRGE-EL-Report-1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, R., McCoach, D. B., Tutwiler, S., et al. (2018). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738053Google Scholar
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator, 27, 4–9.Google Scholar
Hebert, T. P. (2018). Young men overcoming tough times. An exploration of resilience. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
Horn, C. V. (2015). Young scholars: A talent development model for finding and nurturing potential in under-served populations. Gifted Child Today, 38, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514556532Google Scholar
Johnsen, S. K. (2012). NAGC pre-k-grade 12 gifted education programming standards: A guide to planning and implementing high-quality services. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
Johnsen, S. K. (2018). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
Kornich, F., & Furstenberg, F. (2013). Investing in children. Changes in parental spending on children 1972–2007. Demography, 50, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0146-4Google Scholar
Lacour, M., & Tissington, L. D. (2011). The effects of poverty on academic achievement. Educational Research and Reviews, 6, 522–527.Google Scholar
McBee, M. T., Peters, S. J., & Miller, E. M. (2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656256Google Scholar
Moore, K. A., Redd, A., Burkhauser, M., Mbwana, K., & Collins, A. (2009, April). Children in poverty: Trends, consequences and policy options (Child Trends Research Brief, Publication #2009–11). Washington, DC: Child Trends. Retrieved from www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2009-11ChildreninPoverty.pdfGoogle Scholar
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczua, S. (2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 45, 18–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16633182Google Scholar
Mun, R. U., Langley, S. D., Ware, S., et al. (2018). Effective practices for identifying and serving English learners in gifted education: A systematic review of the literature. Storrs, CT: National Center for Research on Gifted Education, University of Connecticut. Retrieved from https://ncrge.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/982/2016/01/NCRGE_EL_Lit-Review.pdfGoogle Scholar
Naglieri, J. A, & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700206Google Scholar
Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2005). Increasing minority children’s participation in gifted classes using the NNAT: A response to Lohman. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900104Google Scholar
National Association for Gifted Children, & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015). 2014–2015 State of the states in gifted education: Policy and practice data. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children. Retrieved from www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-state/2014-2015-state-states-gifted-educationGoogle Scholar
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Steenbergen-Hu, S., Thomson, D., & Rosen, R. (2018). Minority achievement gaps in STEM: Findings of a longitudinal study of Project Excite. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216673449Google Scholar
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (2015). Antecedent and concurrent psychosocial skills that support high levels of achievement within talent domains. High Ability Studies, 26, 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1095077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (Eds.). (2018). Talent development as a framework for gifted education: Implications for best practices and applications in schools. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. (2015). Talent development as a framework for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 38, 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514556531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, S. J., & Gentry, M. (2012). Group-specific norms and teacher rating scales: Implications for underrepresentation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12438717Google Scholar
Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in K–12 education. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Research. Retrieved from http://ceep.indiana.edu/pdf/The_Growing_Excellence_Gap_K12_Education.pdfGoogle Scholar
Plucker, J. A., Hardesty, J., & Burroughs, N. (2013). Talent on the sidelines. Excellence gaps and America’s persistent talent underclass. Storrs, CT; Center for Education Policy Analysis, University of Connecticut. Retrieved from www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/key%20reports/Talent%20on%20the%20Sidelines%20(2013).pdfGoogle Scholar
Reardon, S. F., & Bischoff, K. (2011). Income inequality and income segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 1092–1153. https://doi.org/10.1086/657114Google Scholar
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. f. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Econmetrica, 73, 417–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.xGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, W. H., Burroughs, N. A., Zoido, P., & Houang, R. T. (2015). The role of schooling in perpetuating educational inequality: An international perspective. Educational Researcher, 44, 371–386. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15603982Google Scholar
Siegle, D., Moore, M. Mann, R. L., & Wilson, H. E. (2010). Factors that influence in-service and preservice teachers’ nominations of students for gifted and talented programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003300303Google Scholar
Snellman, K., Silva, J., Frederick, C. B., & Putnam, R. D. (2015). The engagement gap: Social mobility and extracurricular participation among American youth. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 657, 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214548398Google Scholar
Speirs Neumeister, K. S., Adams, C. A., Pierce, R. L., Cassady, G. C., & Dixon, F. A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness; Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 478–499. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-503Google Scholar
Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K–12 Students’ Academic Achievement: Findings of Two Second-Order Meta-Analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86, 849–899. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417Google Scholar
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056Google Scholar
Subotnik, R. F., Worrell, F. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). The psychological science of talent development. In Neihart, M., Pfeiffer, S., & Cross, T. (Eds.). The social and emotional development of gifted children. What do we know? (pp. 145–158). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Nassab, C. A., & Wittig, C. V. (2004). Enhancing and expanding gifted programs. The levels of service approach. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
Wai, J., & Worrell, F. C. (2015, October). Why are we supporting everyone except our most talented students? Medium.com. Retrieved from https://medium.com/bright/why-are-we-supporting-everyone-except-our-most-talented-students-d122ab08bad4#.neg9m4uo7Google Scholar
Wai, J., & Worrell, F. C. (2017a). Fully developing the potential of academically advanced students: Helping them will help society. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from www.tes.com/news/true-path-social-mobilityGoogle Scholar
Wai, J., & Worrell, F. C. (2017b, September 22). The true path to social mobility. TES.com. Retrieved from www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-views/true-path-social-mobilityGoogle Scholar
Worrell, F. C. (2018). Identifying gifted learners: Utilizing nonverbal assessment. In Callahan, C. M. & Hertberg-Davis, (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 125–134). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Worrell, F. C., & Dixson, D. D. (2018). Retaining and recruiting underrepresented gifted students. In Pfeiffer, S. I. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (2nd ed., pp.209–226). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worrell, F. C., & Erwin, J. O. (2011). Best practices in identifying students for gifted and talented education (GATE) programs. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2011.615817Google Scholar
Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Dixson, D. D. (2019). Gifted students. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846Google Scholar
Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & Dilulio, J. Jr. J. (2007). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower income families. Lansdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. Retrieved from www.jkcf.org/research/achievement-trap-how-america-is-failing-millions-of-high-achieving-students-from-lower-income-families/Google Scholar
Xiang, Y., Dahlin, M., Cronin, J., Theaker, R., & Durant, S. (2011). Do high flyers maintain their altitude? Performance trends of top students. Washington, DC: Fordham Institute. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED524344Google Scholar
Yaluma, C. B., & Tyner, A. (2018). Is there a gifted gap? Gifted education in high poverty schools. Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y6hwzumkGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×