See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223686993

Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research

Article in Learning and Individual Differences · August 2010

DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012

CITATIONS READS

180 5,011

2 authors, including:

Joseph S. Renzulli
University of Connecticut
339 PUBLICATIONS 13,113 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Joseph S. Renzulli on 17 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Is There Still A Need for Gifted Education?

An Examination of Current Research

Sally M. Reis
 Abstract

What recent research has been conducted about gifted and talented students and their

learning experiences in school? As we complete the first decade of the new century we are

entering a time when much attention is focused on remediation and test preparation; it only

seems appropriate to reflect upon what has been learned about gifted education during the last

few decades and consider the compelling evidence that may or may not support special services

for gifted and talented. Consensus on which research themes and studies should be included in

this type of examination would difficult to reach, but we have identified six important themes

that are discussed in the article. This review of research strongly suggests that the need for gifted

education programs remains critical during the current time period in American education when

our nation’s creative productivity is being challenged by European and Asian nations.
 What learning experiences do gifted and high-potential students currently encounter in

schools? Are they challenged and engaged in their classes and content areas? Is differentiated

instruction given to them on a regular basis? Does research suggest that certain types of

provisions result in higher engagement, motivation, and creative productivity? In this article,

recent research related to gifted education is summarized across six important research themes:

(a) expanded conceptions of giftedness and talent development; (b) the continued absence of

challenge for gifted and high potential students; (c) grouping patterns for gifted students; (d) the

effects of differentiation, acceleration, and enrichment on both achievement and other important

outcomes; (e) the use of gifted education programs and pedagogy to serve gifted and high-ability

students from diverse populations as well as high-potential students who underachieve or have

learning disabilities; and (f) longitudinal effects of gifted education programs and pedagogy.

Expanded Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent Development

Research about gifted and talented learners points to the great diversity among this

heterogeneous group of young people (Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2001) and the fact that

many do not realize their potential, in part, because of school factors that contribute to

underachievement. In recent years, research about the development of giftedness suggests that

personality, environment, school, home, and chance factors all interact with demonstrated

potential and whether or not that potential eventually develops into demonstrated gifts and

talents (Renzulli, 2006; Sternberg & Davidson, 1986, 2005). Difficulty exists in finding one

research-based definition to describe the diversity of the gifted and talented population, and the

number of overlapping definitions of giftedness that are proposed in educational research

(Sternberg & Davidson, 2005) underlie the complexity of defining with certainty who is and who

is not gifted. In describing this diverse group of learners, many educators interchangeably use

expanded definitions of giftedness and talent. This was not always the case; for decades past,

researchers and psychologists, following in the footsteps of Lewis Terman, equated “giftedness”

with high IQ (Terman, 1925). More recently, however, definitions of giftedness or talent have

become more multi-dimensional and include the interplay of culture and values on the

development of talents and gifts (Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). Current research on the multiple

perspectives of conceptions of giftedness range from general, broad characterizations to more

targeted definitions of giftedness identified by specific actions, products, or abilities within

domains (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986, 2005). This collection of research studies, conducted

over the last few decades, supports a broader-based conception of giftedness which combines

non-intellectual qualities and intellectual potential, such as motivation, self-concept, and

creativity (Sternberg & Davidson, 2005).

Broadened Multidimensional Conceptions of Giftedness

Current research has expanded to include a multidimensional construct of giftedness

that incorporates a variety of traits, skills, and abilities which are manifested in multiple ways.

This belief is particularly evident in Conceptions of Giftedness (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986,

2005) of conceptions of giftedness, in which most contributors proposed conceptions of

giftedness that extended beyond IQ. Rapid learning as compared to others in the population;

attention control, memory efficiency, and characteristics of perception; desire to develop one’s

gifts; and task commitment are all proposed as aspects of giftedness in and across the different

models in this collection (Heller, Perleth, & Lim, 2005; Reis, 2005; Renzulli, 2005). Those

labeled gifted as children and/or adults are found in every ethnic and socioeconomic group and
in every culture (Sternberg, 2004). They exhibit an unlimited range of personal and learning

characteristics and differ in effort, temperament, educational and vocational attainment,

productivity, creativity, risk-taking, introversion, and extraversion (Renzulli & Park, 2002;

Renzulli & Reis, 2003). They have varying abilities to self-regulate and sustain the effort needed

to achieve personally, academically, and in their careers (Housand & Reis, 2009). And despite

the label that this diverse population has been given, some do and some do not demonstrate high

levels of accomplishment in their education or their chosen professions and work (Reis &

McCoach, 2000; Renzulli & Park, 2002).

In research on the characteristics of this diverse population, Frasier and Passow (1994)

synthesized traits, aptitudes, and behaviors consistently identified by researchers as common to

gifted students across cultures, noting that these basic elements of giftedness appear to be similar

across cultures (though each is not displayed by every student). These traits, aptitudes, and

behaviors include: motivation, advanced interests, communication skills, memory, insight,

imagination, creativity, problem solving, inquiry, reasoning, and humor. Each of these common

characteristics may be manifested in different ways in different students; educators should be

especially careful in attempting to identify these characteristics in students from diverse

backgrounds as behavioral manifestations of the characteristics may vary with context (Frasier &

Passow, 1994; Tomlinson, Ford, Reis, Briggs, & Strickland, 2004).

Joseph Renzulli was one of the earliest theorists to propose a research-based multifaceted

conception of giftedness. The theory of his three-ring conception has prompted widespread

research and gained popular appeal. It supports the idea that “gifted behaviors” result from the

interaction among distinct intrapersonal characteristics, as is outlined in the excerpt below.

 Gifted behavior consists of behaviors that reflect an interaction among three basic

clusters of human traits—above average ability, high levels of task commitment, and high

levels of creativity. Individuals capable of developing gifted behavior are those

possessing or capable of developing this composite set of traits and applying them to any

potentially valuable area of human performance. Persons who manifest or are capable of

developing an interaction among the three clusters require a wide variety of educational

opportunities and services that are not ordinarily provided through regular instructional

programs. (Renzulli & Reis, 1997, p. 8)

Underrepresentation of Giftedness in Diverse Populations

The last few decades of the 20th century were marked by an increasing interest in diverse

gifted students who can be described as ethnic, racial, and linguistic minorities, economically

disadvantaged, gifted females, gifted underachievers, and the gifted/learning disabled. Despite

this interest and the recent research cited above that expanded conceptions of giftedness, the

majority of young people identified as gifted continue to represent the majority culture, as

economically disadvantaged and other diverse student populations continue to be

underrepresented in gifted programs (Donovan & Cross, 2002). For example, Frasier and Passow

(1994) indicate that identification and selection procedures may be ineffective and inappropriate

for the identification of these young people. Educator bias, for example, may occur when

preconceived ideas about what constitutes giftedness results in teachers’ failure to recognize and

nominate indicators of giftedness in culturally, linguistically diverse (CLD) students with high

potential (Ford & Grantham, 2003; Frasier & Passow, 1994). Groups that have been traditionally

underrepresented in gifted programs could be better served (Ford & Grantham, 2003; Frasier &

Passow, 1994) if the more expanded notions of giftedness and more flexible forms of
identification are translated from research conducted to state and local guidelines and

regulations. Little doubt exists about the widening acceptance of a broadened conception of

giftedness and talent in the research and scholarly literature (Sternberg & Davidson, 2005),

however translating this research into policy and practice continues to remain an elusive goal.

Continuing Absence of Challenge for Gifted and Talented Students

In National Excellence: A Case for Developing America's Talent (U.S. Department of

Education, 1993), a federal report on the status of education for our nation's academically

talented students, the education of talented students in the United States was described as a quiet

crisis. The National Excellence report indicates the absence of attention paid to this population

and the absence of challenge that confronts them:

Despite sporadic attention over the years to the needs of bright students, most of them

continue to spend time in school working well below their capabilities. The belief

espoused in school reform that children from all economic and cultural backgrounds must

reach their full potential has not been extended to America's most talented students. They

are underchallenged and therefore underachieve. (U.S. Department of Education, 1993, p.

5)

The report further indicates that our nation’s talented students are offered a less rigorous

curriculum, read fewer demanding books, and are less prepared for work or postsecondary

education than top students in many other industrialized countries. Talented children from

economically disadvantaged homes or from culturally or linguistically diverse groups were

found to be especially neglected, the report indicates, and many of them will not realize their

potential without some type of intervention.

 Current research suggests that gifted and talented students fail to be challenged in school,

especially in elementary and middle school (Archambault, Westberg, Brown, Hallmark,

Emmons, & Zhang, 1993; Reis et al., l993; Reis et al., 2004; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, &

Salvin, 1993). Research conducted by researchers at the National Research Center on the Gifted

and Talented have identified what occurs in American classrooms for high ability students and

the results describe a disturbing pattern (Archambault et al., 1993). The Classroom Practices

Survey was conducted to determine the extent to which gifted and talented students receive

differentiated education in regular classrooms. Sixty-one percent of slightly more than 7,300

randomly selected third- and fourth-grade teachers in public and private schools in the United

States reported that they had never had any training in teaching gifted students. Classroom

teachers, responding to a survey, reported making only minor modifications in curriculum and

instruction on a very irregular basis to meet the needs of gifted students. This result was

consistent for all types of schools sampled, for classrooms in various parts of the country, and for

various types of communities (Archambault et al.,1993).

The Classroom Practices Observational Study (Westberg et al., 1993) examined

instructional and curricular practices in 46 regular elementary classrooms throughout the United

States. Two students, one identified gifted student and one average ability student, were selected

for each of two observation days and the types and frequencies of instruction that both students

received through modifications in curricular activities, materials, and teacher-student verbal

interactions were documented by trained observers. The results indicated little differentiation in

the instructional and curricular practices, including grouping arrangements and verbal

interactions, for gifted students in the regular classroom. Over 92 observation days, gifted

students rarely received instruction in homogeneous groups (only 21% of the time), and more
alarmingly, the target gifted students experienced no instructional or curricular differentiation in

84% of the instructional activities in which they participated.

In a study on curriculum differentiation (Reis et al., l993), the effects of using curriculum

compacting (Reis, Burns, & Renzulli, 1992) were examined; curriculum compacting is the

process of modifying the curriculum and eliminating previously mastered work for high ability

students. The content that is eliminated is usually repeated from previous textbooks or even

content that may be new in the curriculum but that some students already know. In this study,

after a few hours of training, classroom teachers learned how to differentiate curriculum and

instruction, and they were able to eliminate between 40-50% of previously mastered regular

curriculum for high ability students. However, they were less effective at replacing what they

eliminated with high quality, challenging curriculum and instruction (Reis et al., l993). No

differences were found in the achievement scores of gifted students whose work was compacted

and students who did all the work in reading, math computation, social studies, and spelling. In

science and math concepts, students whose curriculum was compacted scored significantly

higher than control group in achievement (Reis et al., 1993).

Little differentiation in reading was found for third- or seventh-grade gifted readers who

read several grade levels ahead in reading (Reis et al., 2004). Research conducted in 12 different

third- and seventh-grade reading classrooms in both urban and suburban school districts over a 9-

month period showed that little purposeful or meaningful differentiated reading instruction was

given for talented readers in any of the classrooms (Reis et al., 2004). Above-grade level books

were seldom available for these students in their classrooms, and students were not encouraged

to select more challenging books and so made little continuous progress. Other research related

to the absence of middle school differentiation and attitudes of teachers and administrators about
differentiation (Moon, Tomlinson, & Callahan, 1995) suggests that advanced students continue

to remain under-challenged in many middle school classrooms in the United States.

The research studies summarized in this section suggest that that gifted and high potential

students in American schools are under-challenged. In a data-based longitudinal study (Reis,

Hébert, Diaz, Maxfield, & Rattley, 1995) conducted with gifted, urban, high school students, half

of these previously identified students were found to be underachieving in high school. These

students provided insight about why they did poorly, blaming an elementary and middle school

program that was too easy. The problem of systematically learning not to work exists in rural,

suburban, and urban areas and seems to be an area of increasing importance in the education of

gifted and talented students

This section has summarized studies showing a pattern of little differentiation occurring

in randomly selected classrooms (Archambault et al., l993; Reis et al., l993; Reis et al., 2004;

Westberg et al., 1993). Many classroom teachers have not received training in differentiation or

gifted education pedagogy and fail to use it regularly or effectively in their classrooms

(Archambault et al., 1993; Reis et al., 2004). When they do receive training, they can often

eliminate redundant content through procedures such as curriculum compacting but often have

few resources to use with their students (Reis et al., l993). This lack of challenge and

differentiation is one reason that some gifted students drop out (Renzulli & Park, 2000) or

underachieve in school (Reis et al., 1995).

Research on Grouping Patterns for Gifted Students

Although research on tracking has been shown to produce detrimental effects for some

students (Oakes, 2005), we make a distinction between tracking and instructional grouping. We
define tracking as the permanent placement of students into a class that is often remedial or

advanced in nature with little chance of exit or entrance over the years. In contrast, several types

of instructional grouping exist for academically talented students, and the ones reviewed in this

article enable flexible movement in and out of grouping patterns. Several studies have proven

that grouping gifted students together for differentiated curriculum and instruction increases

achievement for gifted students and, in some cases, also for students who are achieving at

average and below average levels (Gentry & Owen, 1999; Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 1991; Tieso,

2002). Kulik’s (1992) meta-analysis of grouping found that achievement is increased when

gifted and talented students are grouped together for enriched, advanced, or accelerated learning

in classes. Kulik further found, in this meta-analysis, that ability grouping without curricular

acceleration or enrichment produces little or no differences in student achievement. Kulik’s

research found positive effects for students at all achievement levels; gifted, average, and

struggling students were all found to benefit from being grouped with others in

ability/instructional groups when the curriculum is adjusted to the aptitude levels of the group.

Gifted students who were grouped together and received advanced enrichment or acceleration

benefitted the most because they outperformed control group students who were not grouped and

did not receive enrichment or acceleration by 5 months to a full year on achievement tests

(Kulik, 1992).

Rogers (1991), in a separate meta-analysis, found similar results showing grouping gifted

and talented students for instruction in advanced classes improves their achievement, and that

full-time ability/instructional grouping produces substantial academic gains in these students.

She also found that pullout enrichment grouping options produce substantial academic gains in

general achievement, critical thinking, and creativity, and that within-class grouping and
regrouping for specific instruction options produce substantial academic gains provided the

instruction is differentiated, more advanced, or infused with enrichment opportunities (Rogers,

1991). More recently, Tieso (2002) studied grouping patterns and found similar results, as

treatment group students outperformed students who were grouped for an enriched math lesson

scored higher than comparison groups. Further, results indicated significant differences favoring

the group that received a modified and differentiated curriculum in a grouped class (Tieso,

2002). Gentry & Owen (1999), in a quasi-experimental cluster group study of high ability

students, found that students at high, medium, and low levels all benefited from cluster grouping

and other forms of instructional grouping accompanied by differentiated instruction and content.

Cluster groups of students, usually those who score at the very high or low end of achievement,

are grouped in a cluster and then placed in a class with other students. Students who were in

cluster groups and who received advanced and enriched learning opportunities scored

significantly higher than students who were not cluster grouped (Gentry & Owen, 1999).

The more recent research on various forms of grouping gifted and high potential students

strongly supports the use of this instructional strategy for higher achievement and also suggests

benefits for children of other achievement levels as well. Flexible grouping (Tieso, 2002), class

grouping (Rogers, 1999), or cluster grouping (Gentry & Owen, 1999; Tieso, 2002), when

combined with advanced content and differentiated instruction, has been shown to be an

effective strategy for challenging gifted and talented learners, as well as students from other

bands of achievement as well.

Achievement Increases from Accelerated and Enriched Programs

 The use of enrichment, differentiation, acceleration, and curriculum enhancement has

resulted in higher achievement for gifted and talented learners as well as other students when it is

applied to a broader population of high and average achievers (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross,

2004; Field, 2009; Gavin et al., 2007; Gentry & Owen, 1999; Gubbins et al., 2007; Kulik, 1992;

Reis et al., 2007; Rogers, 1991; Tieso, 2002). For example, in one experimental study, teachers

used curriculum compacting and enrichment for gifted students, finding that elimination of work

already mastered by gifted and talented students followed by the replacement of enriched

learning opportunities such as self-selected independent study resulted in higher or similar

achievement scores (Reis, Westberg, Kulikowich, & Purcell, 1998).

Colangelo, Assouline, and Gross (2004), in the most comprehensive meta-analysis of

acceleration to date, studied many different types of acceleration practices. They summarized

research proving that, over decaded, these practices resulted in both higher achievement and

higher standardized scores for gifted and talented learners. Students whose grade level was

accelerated tended to be more ambitious, and they earned graduate degrees at higher rates than

other students. Interviewed years later, accelerated students were uniformly positive about their

experiences, reporting that they were academically challenged, socially accepted, and did not fall

prey to the boredom, as do highly capable students who are forced to follow the curriculum for

their age-peers (Colangelo et al., 2004).

Gavin et al. (2007) used quasi-experimental methods in intact classrooms to investigate

the use of more challenging math curriculum for gifted students; findings showed that talented

third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade math students had significant gains in achievement in math

concepts, computation, and problem solving each year over a 3-year period. Reis and colleagues

(Reis et al., 2007; Reis, Eckert, McCoach, Jacob, & Coyne, 2008), using experimental research
methods, found that students, including gifted students, benefitted from an enriched and

accelerated reading intervention. Gifted students as well as randomly assigned students who

participated in the enriched and accelerated SEM-R program had significantly higher scores in

reading fluency and comprehension than students in the control group, who did not participate in

the SEM-R. Results show achievement differences favoring the SEM-R treatment across all

levels, including students who read well above, at, and below grade level (Reis et al., 2007,

2008).

Field (2009) studied the use Renzulli Learning, an innovative on-line enrichment

program based on the Enrichment Triad Model, for students in both an urban and suburban

school. In this 16-week experimental study, both gifted and non-gifted students who participated

in this enrichment program and used Renzulli Learning for 2-3 hours each week demonstrated

significantly higher growth in reading comprehension than control group students who did not

participate in the program. Students also demonstrated significantly higher growth in oral

reading fluency and in social studies achievement than those students who did not participate

(Field, 2009).

Using quasi-experimental methods in intact classrooms, VanTassel-Baska, Zuo, Avery,

and Little (2002) investigated the use of advanced content with gifted students in units developed

across content areas. They found significant differences favoring students using this content in

language arts, critical reading, persuasive writing, and scientific research design skills. Little,

Feng, VanTassel-Baska, Rogers, and Avery (2007) used quasi-experimental methods to examine

whether the advanced curriculum units respond to the needs of high-ability students in

elementary and middle school social studies. Results demonstrate significant differences between

treatment and comparison groups in the area of content learning, favoring the treatment group.
 The studies summarized in this section have demonstrated that enrichment pedagogy

(Field, 2009; Reis et al., 2007, 2008), differentiation (Gentry & Owen, 1999; Reis et al., 1993;

Tieso, 2002), acceleration (Colangelo et al., 2004), and curriculum enhancement and advanced

lessons (Gavin et al., 2007; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2002) have resulted in higher achievement

for gifted and talented learners as well as other students when they are applied to both gifted and

other lower achieving students.

Benefits of Gifted Education Programs and Pedagogy for Diverse Populations

and Twice Exceptional Students

Recent research has also documented positive effects regarding the use of gifted

education programs and strategies when serving gifted and high-ability students from diverse

cultural groups (Gavin et al., 2007; Hébert & Reis, 1999; Little et al., 2007; Reis & Diaz, 1999;

Reis et al., 2007, 2008) as well as when serving those with special education needs and those

who have high ability but underachieve in school. Work in mathematics conducted by Gavin and

colleagues (2007) has been extended to culturally diverse children, as has been reading

instruction differentiation and enrichment by Reis and her colleagues (2007, 2008) as well as

curriculum enhancement in social studies and language arts by Van-Tassel-Baska and her

colleagues. Underrepresentation of black and Latino students in gifted programs has been an

ongoing problem in the field (Cunningham, Callahan, Plucker, Roberson, & Rapkin, 1998;

Donovan & Cross, 2002; Frasier, 1991; Harris & Ford, 1991) and so these curriculum outreach

efforts have been promising.

Approximately 50% of culturally diverse gifted students underachieved in a longitudinal

study conducted in an urban high school (Reis et al., 1995). Some underachievement can be
reversed (Baum, Hébert, & Renzulli, 1999); when teachers served as mentors for a gifted

program self-selected independent study, 82% of gifted underachieving students reversed their

underachievement (Baum et al., 1999). An analysis of one large national database found that 5%

of identified gifted students dropped out of high school (Renzulli & Park, 2000). Students’

reasons for dropping out related to failures in school, disliking school, finding a job, or becoming

pregnant, although many other related reasons also existed. The majority of gifted students who

dropped out of school participated in fewer extracurricular activities, were from low SES

families and/or racial minority groups, and had parents with low levels of education.

During the last two decades, increasing attention has also been given to the perplexing

problem of gifted and high ability/talented students who also have learning disabilities (Baum,

1988). In one qualitative case study, participants who were both gifted and learning disabled had

the opportunity to participate in gifted education programs and work on advanced projects;

results included improved behavior, self-regulation, and self-esteem (Baum, 1988). Little

research exists on program outcomes for these students as so few are able to participate in gifted

programs. Due to the difficulty in identification and the lack of services for this population, some

research suggests that these “twice exceptional” students may be at risk for social and emotional

adjustment challenges. In one study, for example, half of the gifted students with learning

disabilities enrolled in a competitive university experienced emotional difficulties and sought

counseling (Reis, Neu, & McGuire, 1997). Learning disability programs are often targeted for

less advanced students and differentiation is necessary if gifted students with learning disabilities

are to be both challenged and learn how to use compensation strategies to learn how to be

successful in an academic setting (Reis, McGuire, & Neu, 2000; Reis et al., 1997).

Longitudinal Benefits of Gifted Education Programs and Pedagogy for Gifted and Talented
 Students

Gifted education programs and strategies have been found to longitudinally benefit gifted

and talented students, helping students increase aspirations for college and careers (Taylor,

1992), determine post-secondary and career plans (Delcourt, 1993; Hébert, 1993; Lubinski,

Webb, Morelock, & Benbow, 2001; Taylor, 1992), develop creativity and motivation that was

applied to later work (Delcourt, 1993; Hébert, 1993), and achieve more advanced degrees

(Lubinski et al., 2001). Hébert (1993) and Delcourt (1993) found that gifted programs which

were based on Renzulli’s Triad/SEM approach (Renzulli, 1977; Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997)

and focused on interest development and productivity in areas of interest, had a positive effect

students’ subsequent interests, positively affected post-secondary plans; Renzulli and Reis (187,

1995) also found that early advanced project work in gifted programs served as important

training for later productivity. Hébert (1993) also found that non-intellectual characteristics, such

as creativity, interests, and task commitment, remain consistent in gifted and talented students

over time. Westberg (1999), investigating longitudinal findings of students who participated in

the same type of program, found that students maintained interests and were still involved in

both interests and creative productive work after they finished college and graduate school.

Delcourt (1993) identified benefits of gifted programs, including students’ ability to maintain

interests over time and continue to be involved in creative productive work. Students who

participated in gifted programs in elementary and secondary school maintained academic

interests and increased career aspirations in college (Taylor, 1992). Taylor (1992) also studied

longitudinal effects of Renzulli’s interest and project-based enrichment program and found that

students’ involvement in gifted programs in high school expanded potential career interests.
 Moon, Feldhusen, and Dillon (1994) conducted a retrospective study on the effects of an

elementary pull-out gifted program based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model. Students and their

families indicated that the program had a long-term positive impact on the cognitive, affective,

and social development of most participating students. Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, and Benbow

(2001), in follow-up studies of gifted students who participated in an academic Talent-search for

mathematically advanced students, found that 320 gifted students who were identified as

adolescents pursued doctoral degrees at over 50x the base rate expectations (for the general

population is 1%--1 in 100). The same group of researchers (Lubinski, Benbow, Webb, &

Bleske-Rechek, 2006) tracked 286 males and 94 females (Talent-search participants scoring in

the top .01% on cognitive-ability measures who were identified before age 13) for over 20 years.

They were compared with graduate students (299 males, 287 females) enrolled in top-ranked

U.S. mathematics, engineering, and physical science programs in 1992 who were tracked for

over 10 years. By their mid-30s, the two groups achieved comparable and exceptional success

(e.g., securing top tenure-track positions) and reported high and commensurate career and life

satisfaction. Park, Lubinski, and Benbow (2007) studied a sample of 2,409 intellectually talented

adolescents (top 1%) who were assessed on the SAT at age 13 and tracked them longitudinally

for more than 25 years. Their creative accomplishments, with particular emphasis on literary

achievement and scientific-technical innovation, were examined and results showed that the

distinct ability patterns identified by age 13 were associated with similar forms of creative

expression by middle age.

In summary, both qualitative and quantitative longitudinal studies of gifted programs

demonstrate positive outcomes in cognitive, affective, and social development of participating

students. The participants also pursued doctoral degrees at higher levels than expected, increased
their college and work aspirations, and maintained interests and creative productive work that

begin in gifted programs after they finished college and graduate school.

Summary and Discussion

What can be learned from this examination of recent research on gifted and talented

students and the programs and services in which they participate? First, research detailing less

restrictive and more expanded conceptions of giftedness and talent development are more the

norm than the exception in recent research that extends giftedness beyond IQ scores (Sternberg

& Davidson, 2005). This review also found that the needs of many gifted and talented students

are not addressed in many regular classroom settings across our country (Archambault et al.,

1993; Moon et al., 1995; Reis et al., 2004; Reis & Purcell, 1993; Westberg et al., 1993).

Classroom teachers can, however, learn to differentiate curriculum and instruction in their

regular classrooms (Reis et al., 1993) and to implement gifted education strategies and pedagogy,

such as acceleration (Colangelo et al., 2004), content and instructional differentiation and

enrichment, and interest-based projects across all content areas (Field, 2009; Gavin et al., 2007;

Little et al., 2007; Reis et al., 2007; Reis, Gentry, & Maxfield, 1998; Reis et al., 1998; Tieso,

2002).

A large body of research supports the finding that various forms of acceleration result in

higher achievement for gifted and talented learners (Colangelo et al., 2004; Rogers, 1991). In

addition, the use of enrichment and curriculum enhancement results in higher achievement for

gifted and talented learners as well as other students (Field, 2009; Gavin et al., 2007; Gentry &
Owen, 1999; Kulik, 1992; Reis et al., 2007; Gubbins et al., 2007; Rogers, 1991; Tieso, 2002).

Positive findings and results have also been found relating to the use of gifted education

programs and strategies that been found to be effective at serving gifted and high-ability students

in a variety of educational settings and students from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic

populations (Baum, 1988; Colangelo et al., 2004; Gavin et al., 2007; Hébert & Reis, 1999; Little

et al., 2007; Reis & Diaz, 1999; Reis et al., 2007). Some enrichment pedagogy has even been

found to benefit struggling and special needs students when implemented in a wide variety of

settings (Baum, 1988; Field, 2009; Gavin et al., 2007; Gentry, 1999; Kulik, 1992; Little et al.,

2007; Reis, Schader, Milne, & Stephens, 2003; Reis et al., 2007, 2008; VanTassel-Baska et al.,

2002). While not all forms of pedagogy can be extended to all students, some reading and

technology enrichment programs (Field, 2009; Reis et al., 2007, 2008), some content based

enrichment (VanTassel-Baska et al., 2002), and some differentiation and enrichment project-

based learning have been found to benefit students of all achievement levels.

Some gifted students with learning disabilities who are not identified and served

experience emotional difficulties and seek counseling (Reis et al., 1997). Many gifted students

underachieve in school, but this underachievement can be reversed if programmatic interventions

are implemented (Baum et al., 1999; Hébert & Reis, 1999). And some gifted students do,

unfortunately, drop out of high school due to lack of engagement and success in school (Renzulli

& Park, 2000). Finally, gifted education programs and strategies have been found to benefit

gifted and talented students longitudinally, helping them to increase aspirations for college and

careers, determine post-secondary and career plans, develop creativity and motivation that is

applied to later work, and achieving more advanced degrees (Delcourt, 1993; Hébert, 1993;

Lubinski et al., 2001; Taylor, 1992).

 What implications emerge from this review of recent research? Gifted and talented

students need programs and services that challenge them in regular classroom settings and enable

them to experience enrichment (Gavin, 2007; Reis et al., 2007; Reis, Gentry, & Maxfield, 1998)

and accelerated programs (Colangelo et al., 2004) to enable them to make continuous progress in

school. Many gifted students underachieve in school (Reis & McCoach, 2000) and some even

drop out of high school (Renzulli & Park, 2000); without programming and adequate challenge,

this trend will continue. Gifted students who do underachieve can be helped; over 80 % of those

who underachieved reversed their underachievement when provided with challenging enriched

learning opportunities in areas of interest (Baum et al., 1999).

The lack of teacher training and professional development in gifted education for

classroom teachers (Archambault et al., 1993) may result in fewer challenges, less

differentiation, more underachievement and dropping-out, and lower achievement for all gifted

and talented students. Teachers who receive professional development can learn how to

differentiate and compact curriculum in order to provide more challenge to all students (Reis et

al., 1993); integral to this is that teachers have adequate training, time, and support to learn how

to effectively implement these skills and strategies.

Longitudinal research demonstrates the effectiveness of gifted education programs and

curriculum in raising student achievement, as well as helping students to develop interests,

creativity, and productivity, and career goals (Delcourt, 1993; Hébert, 1993; Lubinski et al.,

2001; Taylor, 1992). Gifted education curriculum, services, and programs often benefit other

students in addition to identified gifted students, including those who with special needs, such as

twice exceptional children. With so much at stake, including the absence of challenge and

increased levels of underachievement, coupled with the documented recorded benefits of so

many gifted program services to identified and non-identified students, why isn’t more being

done to challenge our most able students? We must conclude that there is indeed a need for

programs and services for this population. Indeed, the need may be more critical than in any time

period in recent history for gifted education programs to continue to extend and enrich the

educational experiences of high potential and gifted students of all racial and ethnic groups.
 References

Archambault, F. X., Jr., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C., & Zhang,

W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey

of classroom teachers (RM93102). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the

Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Baum, S. M. (1988). An enrichment program for gifted learning disabled students. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 32, 226-230.

Baum, S. M., Hébert, T. P., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Reversing underachievement: Creative

productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224-235.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. (Eds). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold

back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.

Cunningham, C. M., Callahan, C. M., Plucker, J. A., Roberson, S. C., & Rapkin, A. (1998).

Identifying Hispanic students of outstanding talent: Psychometric integrity of a peer

nomination form. Exceptional Children, 64, 197-209.

Delcourt, M. A. B. (1993). Creative productivity among secondary school students: Combining

energy, interest, and imagination. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 23-31.

Donovan, S. M., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.) (2002). Minority students in special and gifted

education. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences - National Research

Council.

Field, G. B. (2009). The effects of using Renzulli Learning on student achievement: An

investigation of internet technology on reading fluency, comprehension, and social

studies. International Journal of Emerging Technology, 4, 29-39.

Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted students:
 From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory into Practice, 42, 217-25.

Frasier, M. M. (1991). Response to Kitano: The sharing of giftedness between culturally diverse

and non-diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 20-30.

Frasier, M. M., & Passow, A. H. (1994). Towards a new paradigm for identifying talent

potential. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the

Gifted and Talented.

Gavin, M. K., Casa, T. M., Adelson, J. L., Carroll, S. R., Sheffield, L. J., & Spinelli, A. M.

(2007). Project M3: Mentoring Mathematical Minds: Challenging curriculum for talented

elementary students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 566-585.

Gavin, M. K., Casa, T. M., Adelson, J. L., Carroll, S. R., & Sheffield, L. J. (2009). The impact of

advanced curriculum on the achievement of mathematically promising elementary

students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 188-202.

Gentry, M. L., & Owen, S. V. (1999). An investigation of the effects of total school flexible

cluster grouping on identification, achievement, and classroom practices. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 43, 224 - 243.

Gubbins, E. J., Housand, B., Oliver, M., Schader, R., & De Wet, C. (2007). Unclogging the

mathematics pipeline through access to algebraic understanding. Storrs, CT: The

National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Harris, J. J., III., & Ford, D. Y. (1991). Identifying and nurturing the promise of gifted Black

students. Journal of Negro Education, 60(1), 3-18

Hébert, T. P. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school

experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16, 22-28.

Hébert, T. H., & Reis, S. M. (1999). Culturally diverse high-achieving students in an urban high

school. Urban Education, 34, 428-457.

Heller, K. A., Perleth, C., & Lim, T. K. (2005). The Munich Model of Giftedness designed to

identify and promote gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson (Eds.),

Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 172-197). New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

Housand, A., & Reis, S. M. (2009). Self-regulated learning in reading: Gifted pedagogy

and instructional settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 108–136.

Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and

contemporary perspectives (RBDM 9204). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on

the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Little, C. A., Feng, A. X., VanTassel-Baska, J., Rogers, K. B., & Avery, L. D. (2007).

A study of curriculum effectiveness in social studies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 272 -

284.

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Webb, R. M., & Bleske-Rechek, A. (2006). Tracking exceptional

human capital over two decades. Psychological Science, 17, 194-199.

Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10

year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 718-729.

Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillon, D. R. (1994). Long-term effects of an enrichment

program based on the purdue three-stage model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 38-48.

Moon, T. R., Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1995). Academic diversity in the middle

school: Results of a national survey of middle school administrators and teachers

 (Research Monograph 95124). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted

and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2001). The social and

emotional development of gifted children. What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock

Press.

Oakes, J. (2005) Keeping track: how schools structure inequality, Second Edition. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press.

Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns predict

creativity in the arts and sciences: tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years.

Psychological Science, 18, 948–95.

Reis, S. M. (2005). Feminist perspectives on talent development: A research based conception of

giftedness in women. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness

(2nd ed., pp. 217-245). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide

to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability students. Mansfield Center, CT:

Creative Learning Press.

Reis, S. M., & Diaz, E. I. (1999). Economically disadvantaged urban female students who

achieve in school. The Urban Review, 31, 31-54.

Reis, S. M., Eckert, R. D., McCoach, D. B. Jacobs, J. K., & Coyne, M. (2008). Using

enrichment reading practices to increase reading fluency, comprehension, and attitudes.

Journal of Educational Research, 101(5) 299-314.

Reis, S. M., Gentry, M., & Maxfield, L. R. (1998). The application of enrichment clusters to

teachers’ classroom practices. Journal for Education of the Gifted, 21, 310-324.
Reis, S. M., Hébert, T. P., Díaz, E. I., Maxfield, L. R., & Ratley, M. E. (1995). Case studies of

talented students who achieve and underachieve in an urban high school. Storrs, CT: The

National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Reis, S. M., Gubbins, E. J., Briggs, C., Schreiber, F. R., Richards, S., Jacobs, J., … Renzulli, J.

S. (2004). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few

opportunities for continuous progress. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 309-338.

Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: what do we

know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152-170.

Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Coyne, M., Schreiber, F. J., Eckert, R. D., & Gubbins, E. J. (2007).

Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading fluency,

comprehension, and attitude toward reading: An evidence-based study. The Elementary

School Journal, 108, 3-24.

Reis, S. M., McGuire, J. M., & Neu, T. W. (2000). Compensation strategies used by high ability

students with learning disabilities who succeed in college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(2),

123-134.

Reis, S. M., Neu, T. W., & McGuire, J. M. (1997). Case studies of high ability students with

learning disabilities who have achieved. Exceptional Children, 63(4), 1-12.

Reis, S. M., & Purcell, J. H. (1993). An analysis of content elimination and strategies used by

elementary classroom teachers in the curriculum compacting process. Journal for the

Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 147-170.

Reis, S. M., Schader, R., Milne, H., & Stephens, R. (2003). Music & minds: Using a talent

development approach for young adults with Williams syndrome. Exceptional Children,

69, 293-314.
Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J. K., Caillard, F., Hébert, T. P., Plucker, J., … Smist,

J. M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum

compacting study (Research Monograph 93106). Storrs, CT: The National Research

Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J. M., & Purcell, J. H. (1998). Curriculum compacting

and achievement test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42,

123-129.

Renzulli, J. S. (1977). What makes giftedness?: Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60,

180-184.

Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for

promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of

giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 217-245). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (2006). Swimming up-stream in a small river: Changing conceptions and practices

about the development of giftedness. In M. A. Constas & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),

Translating Theory and Research Into Educational Practice: Developments In Content

Domains, Large-Scale Reform, and Intellectual Capacity (pp. 223–253). Mahway, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Renzulli, J. S., & Park, S. (2000). Gifted dropouts: The who and the why. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 44, 261-271.

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., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for

educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relation to the

development of social capital. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted

Education (3rd ed., pp. 75-87). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and

talented learner (RBDM 9102). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted

and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Rogers, K. B. (1999). Whatever happened to Terman’s women research associates? Gifted Child

Quarterly, 43, 150-169.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2004). Definitions and conceptions of giftedness. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness, 2nd edition. Boston, MA:

Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, L. A. (1992). The effects of the secondary enrichment triad model and a career

counseling component on the career development of vocational-technical school students.

Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of

Connecticut.

Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand

gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Tieso, C. L. (2002). The effects of grouping and curricular practices on intermediate students'

math achievement (RM02154). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted

and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Tomlinson, C. A., Ford, D. H., Reis, S. M., Briggs, C. J., & Strickland, C. A. (2004). In search of

the dream: Designing schools and classrooms that work for high potential students from

diverse cultural backgrounds. Washington, DC: The National Association for Gifted

Children and The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993).

National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G. M., Ries, R. R., Poland, D. L., & Avery, L. D. (1998). A national

pilot study of science curriculum effectiveness for high ability students. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 42, 200-211.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Zuo, L., Avery, L. D., & Little, C. A. (2002). A curriculum study of gifted

student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 30-44.

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.

Westberg, K. L. (1999, Summer). What happens to young, creative producers? NAGC: Creativity

and Curriculum Divisions’ Newsletter, 3, 13-16.

Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Jr., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). An

observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and

talented students in regular classrooms (RM93104). Storrs, CT: The National Research

Center on the Gifted and Talented: The University of Connecticut.

Table 1.
Research Studies
Author & Date Title of Study Sample Major Results and Findings

The Needs of Gifted and Talented Students Are Not Often Addressed
in American Classrooms.
Archambault, Westberg, The Classroom N=7300 Sixty-one percent of approximately 7300 randomly
Brown, Hallmark, Practices Survey randomly selected third and fourth grade teachers in public and
Emmons, & Zhang (1993) selected 3rd and private schools in the United States reported that they had
4th grade never had any training in teaching gifted students. The
teachers major finding of this study is that classroom teachers make
only minor modifications on a very irregular basis in the
regular curriculum to meet the needs of gifted students.
This result was consistent for all types of schools sampled
and for classrooms in various parts of the country and for
various types of communities.
Westberg, Archambault, Classroom Practices N=46 teachers Systematic observations conducted in 46 third or fourth
Dobyns, & Salvin (1993) Observational Study grade classrooms with two students, one high ability
N=96 students student and one average ability student, found that little
E differentiation in the instructional and curricular practices,
including grouping arrangements and verbal interactions,
for gifted students in the regular classroom. In all content
areas in 92 observation days, gifted students rarely
received instruction in homogeneous groups (only 21% of
the time), and targeted gifted students experienced no
instructional or curricular differentiation in 84% of the
instructional activities in which they participated.
Reis & Purcell (1993) An analysis of content N=46 3rd- 4th The use of curriculum compacting was examined to
elimination and grade classroom modify the curriculum and eliminate previously mastered
Reis, Westberg, work for high ability/gifted students. When classroom
Kulikowich, & Purcell strategies used by teachers;
elementary classroom teachers eliminated between 40-50% of the previously
(1998) N=150 students; mastered regular curriculum for high ability students, no
teachers in the random
curriculum compacting differences were found between students whose work was
assignment compacted and students who did all the work in reading,
process.
E math computation, social studies and spelling. Almost all
classroom teachers learned to use compacting, but needed
coaching and help to substitute appropriately challenging
options.
Reis, Gubbins, Briggs, Reading instruction for N=12 teachers; Research was conducted in 12 different third and seventh
Schreiber, Richards, talented readers: Case N=350 students grade reading classrooms in both urban and suburban
Jacobs, Eckert, & studies documenting school districts over a 9-month period. Results indicated
E, M that little purposeful or meaningful differentiated reading
Renzulli (2004) few opportunities for
continuous progress instruction was provided for talented readers in any of the
classrooms. Above-grade level books were seldom
available for these students in their classrooms, and they
were not often encouraged to select more challenging
books from the school library. Talented readers seldom
encountered challenging reading material during regular
classroom instruction. Even less advanced content and
instruction was made available for urban students than for
suburban.
Moon, Tomlinson, & Academic diversity in N= 449 Teachers and principals admitted that academically diverse
Callahan (1995) the middle school: Teachers (61 % populations receive very little, if any, targeted attention in
Results of a national response rate); their schools. Teachers report the use of little
survey of middle N= 500 differentiation for gifted middle school students. Both
school administrators Principals (25 % principals and teachers hold beliefs that may deny
and teachers response rate) challenge to advanced middle school students, as the
overwhelming majority believe that these students are
more social than academic. Half of the principals and
teachers believe that middle school learners are in a
plateau learning period when little new learning takes
place—a theory which supports the idea that basic skills
instruction, low level thinking, and small assignments are
appropriate.
Hébert & Reis (1999) Case Studies of N=35 high Half of the 35 students who participated in this
Reis & Diaz (1999) Talented Students Who school students longitudinal study conducted in an urban high school were
Achieve and underachieving in school. Some of the high achieving
Underachieve in an S students also experienced periods of underachievement in
Urban High School school. Talented students who achieve in school
acknowledged the importance of being grouped together in
honors and advanced classes for academically talented
students. Underachievement for the other students began in
elementary school when they were not provided with
appropriate levels of challenge and never learned to work.
Renzulli & Park (2000) Gifted Dropouts: The N=12, 625 high Approximately 5 % of a large, national sample of gifted
Who and the Why school students students dropped out of high school. Gifted students left
school because they were failing school, didn't like school,
S got a job, or were pregnant, although there are many other
National related reasons. Many gifted students who dropped out of
Education school participated less in extracurricular activities. Many
Longitudinal gifted students who dropped out of school were from low
Study (NELS: SES families and racial minority groups, and had parents
1988) with low levels of education.

Benefits of Gifted Programs for Gifted Students with LD and Special Needs
Baum (1988) An enrichment N=7 Participants who were both gifted and learning disabled
program for gifted E had the opportunity to participate in gifted education
learning disabled programs and work on advanced projects, resulting in
students improved behavior, self-regulation and self-esteem.
Baum, Hébert, & Renzulli Students who N=17 When given gifted programming options (self-selected
(1999) underachieve E, M independent study with a mentor), 82% of gifted
underachieving students reversed their underachievement
when they had the opportunities for strength-based gifted
programming.
Reis, Schader, Milne, & Music & minds: Using N=16 The use of participants’ interests and the opportunity to
Stephens (2003) a talent development S participate in advanced training in music was found to
approach for young significantly increase achievement in math, enhance all
adults with Williams participants’ understanding of mathematics and to provide
syndrome opportunities for the further development of their interests
and abilities, especially their potential in music.
 Longitudinal Benefits Of Gifted Programs
Hébert (1993) Reflections at N=9 Gifted programs had a positive effect on subsequent
graduation: The long- S interests of students affect post-secondary plans; early
term impact of advanced project work serves as important training for
elementary school later productivity; non-intellectual characteristics with
experiences in creative students remain consistent over time.
productivity
Lubinski, Webb, Top 1 in 10,000: A N=320 students Follow-up studies found that 320 gifted students identified
Morelock, & Benbow 10-Year Follow-up of as adolescents pursued doctoral degrees at over 50X the
(2001) the Profoundly Gifted PS base rate expectations. The base rate expectation for the
general population is 1%--1 in 100.

Westberg (1999) A longitudinal study of N=15 Students maintained interests and were still involved in
students who E, S both interests and creative productive work after they
participated in a finished college and graduate school.
program based on the
Enrichment Triad
Model in 1981-1984
Delcourt (1993) Creative productivity N=18 Benefits of gifted programs indicate that students
among secondary S maintained interests over time and were still involved in
school students: creative productive work. Students who had participated in
Combining energy, gifted programs, maintained interests and career
interest, and aspirations in college. Students’ gifts and talents could be
imagination. predicted by their elementary school creative/productive
behaviors.
Taylor (1992) The effects of the N=60 Students’ involvement in gifted programs in high school
Secondary Enrichment S enabled them to explore potential career interests and
Triad Model on the allow students to see themselves in the role of practicing
career development of professionals and visualize a different sense of self.
vocational-technical Students had increased post-secondary education plans
school students (from attending 2.6 years to attending 4.0 years).
Moon, Feldhusen, & Long-Term Effects of N=23 students This retrospective study investigated the effects
Dillon (1994) an Enrichment N=22 parents of an elementary pull-out program gifted program based on
Program Based on the the Purdue Three-Stage Model. Students and their families
Purdue Three-Stage indicated the program had a long-term positive impact on
Model E the cognitive, affective, and social development of most
participating students.
Lubinski, Benbow,Webb, Tracking Exceptional Participants: Talent-search participants scoring in the top .01% on
& Bleske-Rechek (2006) Human Capital Over 286 males, 94 cognitive-ability measures were identified before age 13
Two Decades females and tracked over 20 years. Their creative, occupational,
and life accomplishments are compared with those of
graduate students (299 males, 287 females) enrolled in top-
ranked U.S. mathematics, engineering, and physical
science programs in 1992 and tracked over 10 years. By
their mid-30s, the two groups achieved comparable and
exceptional success (e.g., securing top tenure-track
positions) and reported high and commensurate career and
life satisfaction.
Park, Lubinski, & Contrasting N=2409 A sample of 2,409 intellectually talented adolescents (top
Benbow (2007) Intellectual Patterns PS 1%) who were assessed on the SAT by age 13 was tracked
Predict Creativity in longitudinally for more than 25 years. Their creative
the Arts and Sciences: accomplishments, with particular emphasis on literary
Tracking Intellectually achievement and scientific-technical innovation, were
Precocious Youth Over examined and results showed that distinct ability patterns
25 Years identified by age 13 portend contrasting forms of creative
expression by middle age.

Student Achievement Increases/Gains Using Gifted Education Curriculum and/or

Grouping Strategies
Reis, Westberg, Curriculum N=336 Teachers using curriculum compacting for gifted students
Kulikowich, & Purcell compacting and E, M could eliminate 40%-50% of regular curriculum for gifted
(1998) achievement test students and produced achievement scores that were either
scores: What does the the same as a control group or higher math and science,
research say? regardless of what they did instead (independent study in a
different content area).
Reis, McCoach, Coyne, The Schoolwide N=1,500 All students, including gifted students, were randomly
Schreiber, Eckert, & Enrichment Model in E, M assigned to the SEM-R intervention or to continue with the
Gubbins (2007) Reading regular reading program as control students. Those who
participated in the enriched and accelerated SEM-R program
had significantly higher scores in reading fluency and
attitudes toward reading than students in the control group,
who did not participate. Students in the SEM-R treatment
group scored statistically significantly higher than those in
the control group in both oral reading fluency and
comprehension, as well as attitudes toward reading.
Gentry & Owen (1999) Promoting Student N=226 Students at all achievement levels (high, medium and low)
Achievement and benefited from cluster grouping and other forms of
Exemplary Classroom E
instructional grouping accompanied by differentiated
Practices Through instruction and content. Students who were in cluster groups
Cluster Grouping: A scored significantly higher than students who did More
Research-Based students were identified as high achieving during the three
Alternative to years that cluster grouping was used in the school.
Heterogeneous
Elementary
Classrooms
Kulik (1992) An analysis of the Research Achievement is increased when gifted and talented students
research on ability Synthesis are grouped together for enriched or accelerated learning.
grouping: Historical Ability grouping without curricular acceleration or
and contemporary enrichment produces little or no differences in student
perspectives achievement. Bright, average, and struggling students all
benefit from being grouped with others in their
ability/instructional groups when the curriculum is adjusted
to the aptitude levels of the group. When gifted students are
grouped together and receive advanced enrichment or
acceleration, they benefit the most because they outperform
control group students who are not grouped and do not
receive enrichment or acceleration by five months to a full
year on achievement tests.
Rogers (1991) The Relationship of Research Grouping gifted and talented students for instruction
Grouping Practices to Syntheses improves their achievement. Full-time ability/instructional
the Education of the grouping produces substantial academic gains in these
Gifted and Talented students. Pullout enrichment grouping options produce
Learner substantial academic gains in general achievement, critical
thinking, and creativity. Within-class grouping and
regrouping for specific instruction options produce
substantial academic gains provided the instruction is
differentiated. Cross-grade grouping produces substantial
academic gains. Several forms of acceleration also produced
substantial academic effects. Cluster grouping produces
substantial academic effects.

Field (2009) An experimental study N=383 After 16 weeks, students who participated in enrichment and
using Renzulli E, M differentiated programs using Renzulli Learning for 2-3
Learning to investigate hours each week demonstrated significantly higher growth in
reading fluency and reading comprehension than control group students who did
comprehension as well not participate in the program. Students who participated in
as social studies Renzulli Learning demonstrated significantly higher growth
achievement in oral reading fluency and in social studies achievement than
those students who did not participate.
Colangelo, Assouline, & Benefits of various Research The use of many different types of acceleration practices
Gross (2004) forms of acceleration Syntheses results in higher achievement for gifted and talented learners.
Students who are accelerated tend to be more ambitious, and
they earn graduate degrees at higher rates than other students.
Interviewed years later, an overwhelming majority of
accelerated students say that acceleration was an excellent
experience for them. Accelerated students feel academically
challenged and socially accepted, and they do not fall prey to
the boredom, as do so many highly capable students who are
forced to follow the curriculum for their age-peers.
Gubbins, Housand, Unclogging the N=5 teachers Elementary grade students identified for an after-school
Oliver, Schader, & De mathematics pipeline N=73 program in algebra using grade 8, norm-referenced
Wet (2007) through access to students achievement and algebra aptitude tests; the 30 hour
algebraic intervention yielded significant pre/post achievement results
understanding M in problem solving and data interpretation (17-point gain),
and algebra tests.
Gavin, Casa, Adelson, Math achievement was N=41 Challenging math curriculum resulted in significant gains in
Carrol, Sheffield, & investigated using teachers achievement in math concepts, computation, and problem
Spinelli (2007) Project M3: Mentoring N=800 solving each year over a 3-year period for talented math
Gavin, Casa, Adelsonm, Mathematical Minds students students in grades 3, 4, and 5. Students using the curriculum
Carrol, & Sheffield curriculum units for outperformed a comparison group of students of like ability
mathematically E from the same schools. Significant gains were found on
(2009)
talented students challenging open-ended problems adapted from international
and national assessments in favor of students using the
project m3 curriculum over the comparison group. Students
receiving the advanced math achieved significant gains in all
mathematical concepts across grade levels.
Tieso (2002) The Effects of N= 31 Results indicated significant differences on math
Grouping and teachers achievement for treatment group students (who were grouped
Curricular Practices on N=645 for an enriched math lesson and exposed to an enhanced unit)
Intermediate Students' students when compared to the comparison groups. Further, results
Math Achievement indicated significant differences favoring the group that
E, M received a modified and differentiated curriculum in a
grouped class.
 Reis, Neu, & McGuire Talents in Two Places: N=12 Gifted students with learning disabilities in this study
(1997) Case Studies of High currently encountered many negative experiences in school, often
Ability Students enrolled failed to be identified as either gifted or learning disabled,
college or and half had psychological problems that required
university professional help and support in subsequent years.
students
PS
Little, Feng,VanTassel- A Study of Curriculum N=1,200 A quasi-experimental study examined the effects on student
Baska, Rogers, & Avery Effectiveness in Social performance of a Javits-funded curriculum designed to
(2007) (Treatment - respond to the needs of high-ability students in elementary
Studies 941 and middle school social studies. Results demonstrate
Comparison – significant differences between treatment and comparison
251) groups in the area of content learning, favoring the treatment
group; but no significant differences are found for the small
sub-sample of gifted students.
VanTassel-Baska, Bass, A National Pilot Study N=1,471 Results indicate small but significant gains for students using
Ries, Poland, & Avery of Science Curriculum a unit on the dimension of integrated science process skills
(1998) Effectiveness for High E when compared to equally able students not using the units.
Ability Students.

VanTassel-Baska, Zuo, Gifted Students' N=2,189 Findings suggest that gifted student learning at grades 3 to 5
Avery, & Little (2002) Learning Using the was enhanced at significant and important levels in language
E arts critical reading and persuasive writing and scientific
Integrated Curriculum
Model (Icm): Impacts research design skills, through the use of the curriculum
and Perceptions of the across individual academic years.
William and Mary
Language Arts and
Science Curriculum
Vaughn, Feldhusen, & Meta-Analyses and Research The purpose of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness
Asher (1991) Review of Research on synthesis of pull-out programs in gifted education. Nine experimental
Pull-Out Programs in studies were located that dealt with pull-out programs for
Gifted Education gifted students. The variables of self-concept, achievement,
critical thinking, and creativity were quantified via meta-
analysis. The results indicate that pull-out models in gifted
education have significant positive effects for the variables of
achievement, critical thinking, and creativity

*P=Primary grades, K-2; E=Elementary grades, 3-5; M=Middle grades, 6-8; S, H=Secondary or High School
grades, 9-12. PS=Post secondary grades.

View publication stats