Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1998. 49:117­39
Copyright  1998 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
GIFTEDNESS: An Exceptionality
Examined
Ann Robinson
University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 2801 South University, Little Rock, Arkansas
72204; e-mail: aerobinson@ualr.edu
Pamela R. Clinkenbeard
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, 800 West Main Street, Whitewater, Wisconsin
53190-1790; e-mail: clinkenp@uwwvax.uww.edu
KEY WORDS: gifted children, talent development, gifted education, recommended practices
ABSTRACT
The study of giftedness has practical origins. High-level performance in-
trigues people. Theoretically, the study of giftedness is related to the psy-
chology of individual differences and has focused on the constructs of intelli-
gence, creativity, and motivation. At a practical level, the research is largely
related to school and family contexts, which develop gifts and talents in chil-
dren and youth. Although broadened definitions of giftedness have emerged,
the most extensive body of research available for review concentrates on in-
tellectual giftedness. The varying definitions of giftedness and the impact of
social context and diversity on the development of talent pose significant
challenges for the field. Finally, the study of exceptionally advanced per-
formance provides insight into basic psychological processes and the school
contexts that develop talents in children and youth.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
GIFTEDNESS AND GIFTED CHILDREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Definitions of Giftedness and Talent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Social Context and Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GIFTED CHILDREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Cognitive Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
0066-4308/98/0201-0117$08.00
117

Social-Emotional Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Motivational Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
RECOMMENDED PRACTICES IN EDUCATING CHILDREN WITH GIFTS AND
TALENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Recommended Practices as a Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
School Practices with Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
School Practices to be Used with Caution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Research on the Psychology of Giftedness and Talent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Research on School Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
INTRODUCTION
The study of giftedness has practical origins. People are intrigued by high-
level performance and wish to inspect both the performance and the perform-
ers more closely. A novel well written, a basketball maneuver well executed, a
blues riff well played, an endgame well concluded, or a high school science
project well designed attract attention. Fine writers, exhilarating basketball
players, memorable musicians, canny chess prodigies, or youthful scientists
are examples of giftedness made observable.
Theoretically, the study of giftedness is related to the psychology of indi-
vidual differences. Historically, the constructs of intelligence and creativity
and, to a lesser extent, motivation provided the psychological foundations for
investigations of giftedness. The study of giftedness encompasses both adults
and children and the development of talents across many different domains--
for example, the academic content areas, the performing arts, or entrepreneu-
rial pursuits. It involves the investigation of both cognitive and affective vari-
ables. Both retrospective and prospective studies form its research lexicon.
At a practical level, the study of giftedness is primarily concerned with is-
sues related to the education and upbringing of children with gifts and talents.
The field of gifted education generally attracts researchers and school practi-
tioners whose interests and whose research programs are applied. Thus, the
corpus of research in the field has been largely related to schooling and to fam-
ily contexts that develop gifts and talents in children and youth.
The focus of this chapter is on intellectual giftedness, its description, and
the nurture of such gifts and talents in the elementary and secondary school
setting. Although the development of giftedness in the visual arts and in music
are also productive areas of interest for the field (Clark & Zimmerman 1983,
Winner & Martino 1993), the greatest body of extant research available for re-
view remains largely in studies in which intellectual giftedness is a key vari-
able. Definitions of intellectual giftedness, however, have evolved substan-
tially away from equating it with IQ scores. Current research includes a richer
array of variables in defining and describing giftedness.
118 ROBINSON & CLINKENBEARD

GIFTEDNESS AND GIFTED CHILDREN
Definitions of Giftedness and Talent
Theorists, researchers, and practitioners have grappled with the definition of
giftedness and talent. In the modern literature, early definitions ranged from
conservative ones such as Terman's (1925) use of the top 1% of general intel-
lectual ability to Witty's (1958) liberal conceptualization that giftedness is dis-
played by a child "whose performance, in a potentially valuable line of human
activity, is consistently remarkable." A decade ago, Sternberg & Davidson
(1986) edited a collection in which 17 conceptualizations of giftedness were
discussed by the researchers who proposed them. Again, the range of concep-
tualizations was diverse, with some concentrating primarily on the psycho-
logical aspects of intellectual giftedness (Sternberg 1986) and others including
social context in which the development of giftedness is culturally fostered in
some domains, but not recognized in others (Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson
1986, Tannenbaum 1986).
Of those conceptualizations focusing on the psychological aspects, theories
and definitions tended to include the constructs of intelligence, creativity, and
motivation either singly or in combination. For example, Feldhusen (1986)
specifically includes general intellectual ability and achievement motivation
in his conceptualization of giftedness. Jackson & Butterfield (1986) concen-
trate primarily on variables that contribute to superior cognitive performance
in children. Renzulli (1978, 1986) proposes a three-ring definition in which
above average intellectual ability, creativity, and task commitment interact to
produce giftedness.
An important challenge articulated by Gallagher & Courtright (1986) is
that the field applies the term "gifted" to definitions that emerge out of the
study of individual differences in psychology and also to definitions that
are developed by policy makers and by practitioners in order to develop and
deliver services to gifted children. The two kinds of definitions overlap, but
according to Gallagher & Courtright (1986) they serve different functions
and can cause confusion. An example of a definition developed by policy
makers is found in Education of the Gifted and Talented, a report to Con-
gress by Marland (1971). The definition from the Marland Report states:
"Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally quali-
fied persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high per-
formance. These are children who require differentiated educational pro-
grams and services beyond those normally provided by the regular school
program in order to realize their contribution to self and society (pp. I-3 to I-
4)."
GIFTEDNESS: AN EXCEPTIONALITY EXAMINED 119

The report went on to enumerate six areas of giftedness: general intellectual
ability, specific academic aptitude, creative or productive thinking, leadership
ability, visual and performing arts, and psychomotor ability.
Later, the domain of psychomotor ability was dropped as a separate cate-
gory. The Marland definition served to increase awareness beyond strict psy-
chometric definitions like Terman's. It was criticized, however, for presenting
unparallel categories and for possible misinterpretations, for example, leading
practitioners to believe that a particular child would exhibit high performance
in all areas (Renzulli 1978). As stated earlier, Renzulli (1978) proposed his
own definition, which suggested that giftedness was an interaction among
three clusters of traits: above-average general or specific abilities, task com-
mitment, and creativity. Both the definition from the Marland Report and the
definition proposed by Renzulli affected the development of educational pro-
grams for able students with the concentration being on developing services
that provide general academic or creative enrichment.
More recently, Feldhusen & Jarwan (1993) reviewed the definitions of gift-
edness and talent and noted that they fell into six categories: psychometric
definitions, trait definitions, definitions focused on social needs, educationally
oriented definitions, special talent definitions, and multidimensional defini-
tions. Their categories were not exclusive; some definitions of giftedness
could be classified in more than one way. Psychometric definitions focus on
attaining certain scores usually on intelligence tests. The operational definition
of an IQ score of 140 used by Terman (1925) is an example of the psychomet-
ric definition. Trait definitions are those that focus on the psychological char-
acteristics of able children and youth, although whether these definitions as-
sume that characteristics such as motivation are stable traits rather than states
is not clear. In contrast to state-trait definitions, definitions that focus on social
needs include statements that giftedness is defined by what society values.
Tannenbaum's (1986) conceptualization of talents emerging in response to
popular demand is an example of this kind of definition. Educationally ori-
ented definitions include statements about the need for special provisions, and
in some cases use a local norm-referenced approach. For example, state or dis-
trict definitions may explicitly note a percentage of the school population to be
served, usually ranging from the top 20% to top 5%. Special talent definitions
are those that focus on specific domains such as mathematics, the arts, and the
sciences. The language used in the 1993 federal report, National Excellence: A
Case for Developing America's Talent (Ross 1993), is an example of a defini-
tion that crosses several categories: "These children and youth exhibit high
performance capability in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas, possess
an unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They re-
quire services or activities not ordinarily provided in the schools."
120 ROBINSON & CLINKENBEARD

Giftedness and talent are often used interchangeably; however, Gagné
(1985, 1991) has differentiated between the two concepts by defining gifted-
ness as above-average competence in human ability, and talent as above-
average performance in a particular field. That is, giftedness refers to human
aptitudes such as intellectual or creative abilities. Talent is demonstrated in an
area of human activity such as mathematics, literature, or music.
SUMMARY OF DEFINITIONS There is no one agreed-upon definition of gifted-
ness or talent that dominates the field. Robinson & Olszewski-Kubilius (1996)
note this diversity reflects the substantial variability among exceptional chil-
dren who deviate positively from the norm. Most definitions, whether they are
psychologically based or educationally driven, have moved away from equat-
ing giftedness with intelligence as defined by general IQ tests. Several current
definitions are broadened in terms of the constructs they consider constituents
of giftedness--creativity and motivation, for example. Others are broadened
by enumerating specifically the fields or domains in which high performance
may be observed. And finally, some definitions are broadened by explicitly
considering the societal or cultural context in which gifts and talents develop.
Social Context and Diversity
The social context of giftedness includes the cultural values and therefore the
opportunities that make it possible for gifts and talents to develop. An extreme
example of the importance of social and cultural context is found in child
prodigies. Feldman (1991) has proposed co-incidence theory to explain the ap-
pearance of remarkable, adult-level performance in children before the age of
ten. According to Feldman, prodigies occur when the extraordinary abilities of
the child, the development of the domain in which the prodigy excels, and the
context of the family and learning opportunities "co-incide" to provide opti-
mal conditions. Prodigies are generally born into families that recognize and
value the talent when it emerges; they are schooled by master teachers, and
their talent area is culturally valued and also accessible to children. For exam-
ple, chess prodigies appear in cultures where chess is appreciated and available
to the child. Thus, for Feldman (1993) the existence of a well-developed do-
main, its cultural acceptance, and the child's opportunity to engage with the
domain are crucial determinants of the development of prodigious perform-
ance.
DIVERSITY Social and cultural context operate in other ways as well. The
definitions reviewed in the preceding section noted that acknowledging cul-
tural context has broadened conceptualizations of giftedness. For example,
children from diverse ethnic backgrounds may display their gifts and talents in
GIFTEDNESS: AN EXCEPTIONALITY EXAMINED 121

areas particularly valued by members of the culture but not easily recognized
by members of other cultural groups. Frasier & Passow (1994) reviewed the
literature on the characteristics or attributes of gifted children from various
ethnic minority groups and concluded that across all groups there were some
shared attributes such as motivation, intense interests, and problem solving
ability but that other distinct behavioral indicators were specific to each eth-
nicity.
One of the most pervasive concerns in the field is that children and youth
from diverse cultural backgrounds (Harris & Ford 1991, Maker 1996) and
from low-income homes (Borland & Wright 1994) or children who have learn-
ing (Whitmore & Maker 1985) or physical disabilities are less likely to be rec-
ognized as gifted (Willard-Holt 1994).
In each case, adaptations to the usual means of identifying students for spe-
cialized services have been suggested or investigated. For example, Scott and
her colleagues (1996) used a series of open-ended cognitive tasks with kinder-
garten children and were able to identify both Black/non-Hispanic and White/
Hispanic youngsters missed by more traditional identification measures and
procedures. Borland & Wright (1994) used a case study approach to locate
young gifted children from extremely impoverished homes. They engaged in
extended observation periods in classrooms with multicultural enrichment ac-
tivities and used portfolio assessment and teacher nomination to formulate a
pool of children for further consideration. A second phase included nontradi-
tional and standardized assessment and resulted in two cohorts of children be-
ing identified over the course of two years. Mills & Tissot (1995) report that
the Ravens Progressive Matrices shows promise as a screening measure for
culturally diverse gifted learners.
SUMMARY OF SOCIAL CONTEXT AND DIVERSITY The development of gifts
and talents in diverse populations has been addressed in at least two substan-
tive ways. First, the conceptions of giftedness have been broadened to include
explicit acknowledgment of social and cultural influences on behavioral indi-
cators of giftedness. Second, school-based procedures for the identification of
gifted and talented learners have been adapted to take diversity into account by
including formal and informal measures other than standard IQ tests.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GIFTED
CHILDREN
In his classic longitudinal studies of the gifted, Terman (1925) investigated
various characteristics of a high IQ (over 140) sample, followed from child-
hood through adulthood. He found that members of his sample, who also
tended to be above average on socioeconomic and physical characteristics,
122 ROBINSON & CLINKENBEARD

generally scored average or somewhat above average on a wide variety of psy-
chological characteristics. The fact that SES was not controlled for in Ter-
man's studies is one of the biggest hurdles in applying his research to today's
gifted students. Current broadened conceptions of giftedness are more valid
for the provision of educational services, but they make it more of a challenge
to create a coherent picture of the psychological characteristics of the gifted.
Definitions of giftedness vary considerably in recent research on psychologi-
cal characteristics. Researchers in cognitive and metacognitive areas still tend to
use a high IQ definition, probably as a way of holding constant at least some
general aspects of cognitive functioning within their samples. Researchers in
nonintellective areas are more likely to use whatever definition has been used to
identify gifted students by the participating school systems. There is some valid-
ity to this approach: Not only does it mean that a more diverse group of students
is being studied, but also it may be that the social and emotional experience of
being gifted is due as much to the label as to internal psychological factors.
One more complicating factor in studying the psychological characteristics
of the gifted is that underachieving gifted students may be quite different from
high achievers. Some authors (Ford 1993, Luthar et al 1992) address these dif-
ferences in their research, but for other studies it is not always clear whether
underachieving gifted students are included in the sample.
Cognitive Characteristics
Most research on the cognition of the gifted has investigated in what way
gifted individuals (usually children) are different from others in the ways they
think. While there is some overlap in the literature between what are consid-
ered cognitive skills and what are considered metacognitive skills, the research
can be separated into the investigation of simpler individual cognitive skills,
and processes that are more complex, strategic, and executive.
COGNITIVE DIFFERENCES In a review of the cognitive differences between in-
tellectually gifted (high IQ) children and others, Rogers (1986) concludes that
the gifted are generally different in degree, not kind, of cognition. That is,
gifted students tend to acquire and process information and solve problems
better, faster, or at earlier ages than other students. However, they are probably
not employing qualitatively different, unique thinking abilities, at least in the
high IQ groups reviewed by Rogers.
Wilkinson (1993) analyzed the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Chil-
dren­Revised (WISC-R) profiles of 456 third grade students, all of whom had
full-scale IQs of 120 or above. Compared to the norm, these students showed
greater variability in their profiles. There was a greater frequency of extreme
subtest scores, larger verbal-performance discrepancies (in both directions),
GIFTEDNESS: AN EXCEPTIONALITY EXAMINED 123

and more scatter among subtest scores. These students scored highest on
subscales reflecting more complex reasoning (for example, similarities and
block design) and lowest on scales measuring lower-level thinking skills (cod-
ing, digit-span).
Butterfield & Feretti (1987) list several kinds of cognitive differences that
various authors have shown distinguish between people of like ages but differ-
ent IQs. Higher IQ persons have been found to: have larger, more efficient
memories; have larger and more elaborately organized knowledge bases; and
use more, more complex, and more active processing strategies.
Davidson (1986) measured the performance of gifted students on mathe-
matical and verbal insight problems. Insight was defined as the selective or
novel encoding, combining, or comparing of information. Gifted upper ele-
mentary school children not only scored better than others on the insight prob-
lems, they were more likely to employ selective encoding, combination, and
comparison spontaneously in solving the problems. Other children were more
likely to need cues in order to use these processes.
Some authors have investigated the cognition of extremely high IQ chil-
dren. Lovecky (1994) focused on the cognitive differences between "moder-
ately gifted" (IQ 140­159) and "highly gifted" (170 and above) children. From
clinical testing and observation, she concluded that highly gifted children tend
to make simple tasks more complex, have a need for extreme precision, under-
stand complex patterns quickly, reason abstractly at an earlier age, and have
exceptional memory. Gross (1994) adds to these characteristics of the highly
gifted an early ability to transfer knowledge across domains, a verbally sophis-
ticated sense of humor, and intuitive leaps.
A review by Sternberg & Davidson (1985) lists several cognitive abilities at
which the gifted are exceptional: They tend to have both high general intelli-
gence and specific ability in their area of expertise, they capitalize on their pat-
terns of abilities, they shape their environment, they demonstrate problem-
finding ability, and they can conceive higher-order relations. This begins to
take us into the realm of metacognition.
METACOGNITIVE DIFFERENCES Metacognition, or thinking about one's own
thinking, may be an important component of giftedness. A recent review of re-
search in this area (Alexander et al 1995, Carr et al 1996) looked at three as-
pects of metacognition: factual knowledge about thinking strategies, use of
strategies, and cognitive monitoring. The authors conclude that gifted students
show better performance than other students on only some aspects of metacog-
nition. For instance, gifted children seem to have more factual knowledge
about metacognition than other children, and this advantage seems to be pres-
ent consistently across age levels. They also seem to be better at far transfer,
124 ROBINSON & CLINKENBEARD

using strategies in contexts far different from that in which strategies were
learned. These authors concluded that there was limited support for the idea
that gifted students are more spontaneous in their strategy use than other stu-
dents, although there was some evidence for this in upper elementary age and
young adolescent students. Finally, they concluded that there is no evidence
that gifted children are better than other children at consistently using better
strategy, monitoring their strategy use (evaluating and changing strategies as
needed), or in maintenance and near transfer (using strategies in situations
similar to those in which the strategy was taught).
Cheng (1993), in addition to reviewing some of the empirical research on me-
tacognition and the gifted, notes the importance of case studies and naturalistic
research in order to see more clearly the developmental path of metacognitive
skills in gifted individuals. She speculates that metacognition within a particular
talent domain becomes important after the early learning years, after children
have learned the basics of their field and become immersed in strategy and self-
analysis. Shore et al (1994) illustrate the complexity of research in this area. In a
reanalysis of an earlier study comparing gifted and other students, the authors
examined the problem-solving results of a group of gifted students who origi-
nally had not met the criterion for inclusion in the study (solving the first few of
nine problems correctly). In contrast to their conclusions in the earlier study
(that gifted students performed better metacognitively than others), it was found
that these "noncriterion" gifted actually made more metacognitive (strategy) er-
rors than the other students who did not meet the criterion, and that they seemed
to be drawing on imaginary data to help solve the problem. Shore et al (1994)
warn against jumping to conclusions about the overall abilities of individuals
who do not perform well on specific tasks, and speculate about the role of moti-
vation and creativity in metacognition as did Cheng (1993).
SUMMARY OF COGNITIVE CHARACTERISTICS Gifted elementary or secondary
age children, who in this research are usually defined as those with high IQ
scores, show some advantages over other students particularly in quantity,
speed, and complexity of cognition. They know more about metacognition and
can use strategies better in new contexts, but they may not use a wider variety
of metacognitive strategies than other students, and they do not apparently
monitor their strategies more than other students. Several authors caution that
both creativity and motivation probably influence the results of research on
cognitive and metacognitive characteristics.
Social-Emotional Characteristics
There has always been a fascination with the social and emotional characteris-
tics of the gifted. This may be due, in part, to an anti-intellectual desire to find
GIFTEDNESS: AN EXCEPTIONALITY EXAMINED 125

something "wrong" with this group. Some of the research on nonintellective
characteristics compares gifted and other students; other approaches describe
these characteristics in various subgroups of the gifted, or look for differences
among groups of gifted seventh through ninth graders. In general, the research
indicates that the stereotyped view of a maladjusted child with poor social
skills is far from the truth. In a review of the literature on psychosocial devel-
opment, Janos & Robinson (1985) conclude that "Being intellectually gifted,
at least at moderate levels of ability, is clearly an asset in terms of psychosocial
adjustment in most situations." (p. 181).
How do gifted students see their own noncognitive characteristics? Kunkel
et al (1995) used a concept-mapping technique: This involved asking gifted
students about their experience of being gifted, developing questionnaire
items from the responses, and presenting graphically the main themes that
emerged. The strongest noncognitive themes included receiving respect from
others, feeling a sense of social stress, and generally feeling satisfied with
themselves. These themes are found in other studies as well.
SOCIAL SKILLS AND RELATIONSHIPS How do gifted students get along with
their peers? Mayseless (1993) reports on several studies indicating that pre-
adolescent and adolescent gifted students tend to be at least as popular as other
students their age, but that gifted adolescents may self-report lower popularity
than others. Kline & Short (1991a,b) found that both gifted girls and gifted
boys scored very high on a self-report measure of "relationship with peers."
However, while girls found relationships to be more important as they devel-
oped through the school-age years, boys seemed to value relationships less as
they grew older. Mayseless (1993) compared the friendship styles of gifted
and other students. Ninth grade gifted students reported lower levels of inti-
macy with their best same-sex friend than did other ninth graders (girls re-
ported higher levels than boys). The author speculates that this may be due to
higher standards of ideal friendships on the part of the gifted students, or to
gifted students being more activity- and task-oriented (instrumental) than
person-oriented (expressive) in their relationships.
What factors serve to assist gifted students in their social relationships? In
an investigation of the social support of gifted adolescents (VanTassel-Baska
et al 1994), students of higher socioeconomic status reported higher levels of
support than students of lower socioeconomic status. There were significant
differences between these groups on support from friends, classmates, parents,
and teachers. Males overall reported more support from friends than females
overall. In a factor analytic study of social coping strategies, Swiatek (1995)
found three statistically reliable strategies used by highly gifted adolescents,
strategies that help them deal with the social consequences of being gifted. The
126 ROBINSON & CLINKENBEARD

strategies were denial of giftedness, popularity/conformity, and peer accep-
tance. Swiatek found no gender differences in the strategies; she did find that
the most highly gifted students were those most likely to deny being gifted, and
that students who were predominantly gifted in verbal domains reported lower
levels of peer acceptance than did students who were predominantly talented
in mathematics. It may be that students with extremely high intellectual gifts
are most concerned with living up to others' expectations, and so deny their
giftedness more often. Verbal talents may be more visible to peers than mathe-
matical talents, and so verbally gifted students may feel more "different" from
peers than the mathematically gifted.
EMOTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Studies of the emotional and personality
characteristics of the gifted generally show, like the Terman studies, that gifted
students are somewhat better adjusted than students on average. However, re-
cent research on the affect of gifted students has investigated finer distinctions
within types of variables such as self-concept, and has highlighted some of the
gender differences in gifted students with respect to emotion and personality.
In a review of the literature on personality and gifted children, Olszewski-
Kubilius et al (1988) found that gifted students were generally at least as well
adjusted as norm groups and comparison groups, and possessed more person-
ality characteristics ordinarily considered to be favorable than comparison
groups. They also found that gifted children may display personality function-
ing, in some domains, similar to that of older students. High IQ elementary
school students tended to display lower levels of anxiety than other children,
especially anxiety about school. Gifted adolescents scored within normal
ranges or higher on almost every scale of major personality inventories. The
authors note that the generalization of research comparing gifted and other stu-
dents is hampered by lack of information on socioeconomic status and other
demographic information.
Research on the self-concept of gifted children has presented conflicting re-
sults. Some studies using global measures of self-esteem indicate that gifted
students score higher on these measures than other students, whereas other
studies show no difference between groups or, occasionally, that gifted stu-
dents score lower (Olszewski-Kubilius et al 1988). More informative are stud-
ies that look at various types of self-concept, and that investigate gender differ-
ences. Hoge & McSheffrey (1991) gave the Self-Perception Profile for Chil-
dren (Harter 1985) to 280 students in grades five through eight. They found
that gifted students scored slightly lower than the norm group on Social and
Athletic Competence, but higher on Scholastic Competence and Global Self-
Worth. They also found that academic performance seemed to be a more im-
portant factor in global self-worth for girls than for boys. Similarly, Pyryt &
GIFTEDNESS: AN EXCEPTIONALITY EXAMINED 127

Mendaglio (1994) administered a multidimensional self-concept measure and
found that gifted students scored higher, on average, than their age peers, with
academic self-concept contributing most to the difference. However, the gifted
students scored slightly higher on social, athletic, and evaluative subscales as
well.
In a study of the psychological adjustment of gifted early adolescents (Lu-
thar et al 1992), these students were found to be more similar to college stu-
dents (matched to the gifted students on cognitive maturity) than to students
their own chronological age. Measures of cognitive ability, depression, anxi-
ety, locus of control, and real and ideal self-image were administered. Gifted
students were generally high on psychological adjustment and had less depres-
sion and better self-image than same-age students. The authors speculate that
previous inconsistencies in the research on the adjustment of the gifted may be
due to differences in achievement: that is, that underachieving gifted students
may be less well-adjusted than both achieving gifted students and an unse-
lected group of same-age students.
In contrast to most of the research presented above, Roberts & Lovett
(1994) found that after experimentally induced scholastic failure, gifted ado-
lescents demonstrated more negative emotional reactions than did two groups
of their age peers: high academic achievers who had not been labeled gifted,
and a randomly selected group of students. After failing to solve extremely dif-
ficult anagrams, gifted students showed greater irrational beliefs and self-
oriented perfectionism, greater negative affect, and more physiological stress
than students in the other two groups.
In a pair of developmental studies of social and emotional characteristics of
gifted students (Kline & Short 1991a,b), it was found that gifted girls in high
school had significantly less self-confidence, more perfectionism, and more
discouragement than younger gifted girls. There were no age differences in
hopelessness, but means were above the norms. In contrast, for gifted boys the
authors found that gifted high school boys felt less discouragement and hope-
lessness than younger boys; there were no age differences in self-confidence or
perfectionism. Scores were similar for high school girls and boys on self-
confidence and perfectionism, but girls scored higher on discouragement and
hopelessness.
Motivational Characteristics
Research on the motivational characteristics of the gifted can be classified into
three main categories: studies that compare gifted students to the norm on mo-
tivation, studies that describe motivation patterns of gifted students, and stud-
ies that investigate motivational differences between gifted students who per-
form up to potential ("achieving") and those who do not ("underachieving").
128 ROBINSON & CLINKENBEARD

Olszewski-Kubilius et al (1988) reviewed several studies showing that
gifted elementary students generally score significantly higher on internal lo-
cus of control than comparison students. High IQ students tended to score
higher on measures of intrinsic motivation and autonomy than average IQ stu-
dents, and are more likely to demonstrate positive attributions for success and
failure, for example, attributing success to their own ability and effort, and at-
tributing failure to bad luck or inappropriate strategy choice. Csikszentmihalyi
et al (1993), in a longitudinal study of ninth and tenth grade students through
their high school years, found that when compared with average students, in-
tellectually talented adolescents showed more intrinsic motivation for reading,
thinking, and solitude. They also found that the students who were the most
committed to their own talent domain at the end of this longitudinal study were
those who had displayed the strongest intrinsic motivation for that domain.
Benbow et al (1991) investigated correlates of educational achievement in a
sample of mathematically precocious youth. They found that motivation (as
measured by quantity of academic activities and participation in optional con-
tests and exams in high school) was the third most useful predictor of educa-
tional achievement and aspiration at age 23, behind quality of instruction and
home environment. Ford (1993) found that several motivational factors distin-
guished between achieving and underachieving gifted Black students. Achiev-
ers were less concerned with peer pressure and reported high effort and no test
anxiety. Underachievers had a more external locus of control, were more am-
bivalent about trying hard, and reported that they felt test anxiety. Emerick
(1992) identified motivational factors that led to the reversal of underachieve-
ment in several gifted adolescents. Factors included a strong intellectual or
creative interest pursued outside of school, school classes that allowed for ad-
vanced and independent study, and an ability to relate school success to per-
sonal goals.
SUMMARY OF SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL AND MOTIVATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Gifted students (usually defined by a wide variety of school definitions in this
research, including intellectual, creative, and leadership characteristics) tend
to have better psychosocial adjustment than other students. They are at least as
popular, though they may have different friendship styles. Their self-concepts,
while heavily weighted with their academic abilities, are generally high, and
they tend to score at normal or above levels on personality measures. They
tend to be more internally motivated and have more positive attributions for
success and failure; however, they may have more trouble coping when they
do encounter failure.
These positive findings may not be true for various subgroups of the gifted.
Sex differences have been found such that through adolescence, females tend
GIFTEDNESS: AN EXCEPTIONALITY EXAMINED 129

to decrease and males tend to increase on several positive emotional character-
istics. In addition, these psychological advantages may start to disappear as the
level of giftedness increases. Students who are extremely far from the norm in-
tellectually seem to have more trouble fitting in socially and emotionally as
well. Gifted students who are underachievers may demonstrate considerably
different psychological profiles. Finally, students from cultural or ethnic
groups where the identification of giftedness has not been traditional have not
been thoroughly investigated.
RECOMMENDED PRACTICES IN EDUCATING
CHILDREN WITH GIFTS AND TALENTS
Recommended Practices as a Framework
The relationship between theoretically driven research and educational prac-
tice in developing students' gifts and talents is frequently less direct and useful
than either researchers or practitioners would like it to be. Assessments of a
knowledge base in psychology or education generally take the form of an ex-
pert review of the empirical literature on a specific topic. Depending upon the
topic and the personal interests of the reviewer, the connections among theory,
research, and practice are suggested openly or they may go begging. When the
connections are not clearly made, the researcher looking for current trends or
future directions is disappointed; the practitioner looking for validation of
daily educational practice finds little of immediate value. To aid the connec-
tion between research and practice in giftedness, Shore et al (1991) proposed
that the knowledge base be examined from the practitioner's point of view.
Shore and his colleagues recommended using the considered expert advice
generally accessible to a concerned parent or teacher as the bridge between re-
searcher and practitioner. According to the authors, there are five important
elements to the notion of a recommended practice as a way of organizing the
knowledge base. First, it refers to specific advice given in the form of "do,"
"don't," or "should" statements; for example, "Career counseling is needed,
especially for girls." Second, recommended practices signal a level of agree-
ment among experts in the field, but more narrowly so than standards that are
generally endorsed by some organization for the purpose of certification or ac-
creditation. Third, recommended practices are sufficiently broad to be generic.
For example, a practice proposing the use of rigorous curriculum with able
learners does not specify particular curricular materials. Fourth, recommended
practices should be viewed as hypotheses--tested or untested--in the field.
Fifth, the term recommended practice does not imply that the practice is thor-
oughly researched and validated. Although they may have the initial appear-
ance of received wisdom, recommended practices are to be held up to scrutiny.
130 ROBINSON & CLINKENBEARD

Shore and associates made the pragmatic decision that the compilation of rec-
ommended practice should not only be based on the best information on a topic
but also on the information that is most widespread and most likely to be avail-
able by parents and practitioners. In fact, very durable but scantily researched
practices have found their way into the knowledge base on giftedness. The use
of the recommended practice as a framework for review provides a means for
determining the areas most in need of research and suggests the direction the
inquiry might take.
The process used to develop the recommended practices has been fully de-
scribed elsewhere (Robinson 1992, Shore et al 1991, Shore & Delcourt 1996).
Briefly, from an examination of 100 textbooks, handbooks, yearbooks, and
collections of readings, Shore and associates identified 101 recommended
practices organized into four main groups with several subgroups. The head-
ings provide a signpost and overview for the research subsequently reviewed
in relation to each of the practices:
Noncurricular Issues
1. Advocacy and Administration
2. Identification and Assessment
Curricular and Teaching Strategies
3. Curricular and Program Policies
4. Advice to Educators
Family, Counseling and Personal Adjustment
5. Advice to Parents
6. Advice to Professionals
7. Social and Emotional Adjustment
Special Groups
8. Special Groups
Books rather than journal articles or other types of research reports were se-
lected as the source for recommended practices because texts become the re-
pository for widely held assumptions and shared information.
In the next phase of the investigation, the research reported in general edu-
cation and gifted education journals relevant to each of the 101 practices was
reviewed. Each review included an expanded statement of the practice, a sum-
mary of the current research on the practice, a set of implications for action de-
rived from the current knowledge, and a section suggesting needed research on
the practice.
School Practices with Support
When the reviews of the individual practices were completed, an overall pic-
ture of the state of the knowledge base on giftedness emerged. In the initial as-
GIFTEDNESS: AN EXCEPTIONALITY EXAMINED 131

sessment of 1991, approximately 40% of the recommended practices were
supported by research. The practices with the most complete research support
were in the area of identifying students for specialized services and in the spe-
cial needs of particular groups, notably gifted girls and gifted learners with
physical disabilities. The developed research base in both of these areas re-
flects the psychometric roots of the field and the sustained interest in special
groups of gifted learners.
In 1991, those recommended practices with the least well-developed
knowledge base and therefore most in need of attention from researchers
tended to cluster in curricular and program policies. Thus, as the authors
(Shore et al 1991) noted, some very important and widespread practices were
without solid empirical support. A subsequent review by Shore & Delcourt
(1996) updated the status of several of the practices related to curricular and
program policies. Combining the initial review, the recent update and several
large-scale studies undertaken with federal support, two major practices with
research support are reviewed here.
ACCELERATION In both the 1991 and the 1996 review, research support was
found for the practice of acceleration for able learners. Although popular no-
tions of acceleration envision only grade skipping in which a student is moved
ahead of his or her agemates in grade placement, there are various forms.
Southern et al (1993) compiled a list of 17 different types of educational accel-
eration, only 4 of which depend upon changing the classroom grade placement
of students. In addition to grade skipping, these include: early entrance to kin-
dergarten or first grade, early entrance to junior or senior high school, and
early graduation from high school, typically in 3.5 years rather than 4 years.
Continuous progress, concurrent enrollment programs, or Advanced Place-
ment courses are also examples of acceleration used with gifted learners, but
they do not require grade skipping.
The available literature on acceleration has been reviewed regularly over
the decades (Benbow 1992, Daurio 1979, Kulik & Kulik 1984, Pollins 1983,
Southern & Jones 1991). In a meta-analysis of acceleration studies, Kulik &
Kulik (1984) analyzed 26 different studies in 21 reports. One set of studies com-
pared accelerants with same-age controls; the second set compared accelerants
with older-age controls on measures of achievement. In order to be included in
the meta-analysis, the study had to control for aptitude between the accelerated
and nonaccelerated groups. The comparison of same-age accelerants and non-
accelerants resulted in a mean effect size of +.88. In the studies comparing ac-
celerants with older age students, the mean effect size was +.05. The authors
concluded that on measures of achievement, accelerated students do not differ
from older aged control students of similar aptitude (Kulik & Kulik 1984).
132 ROBINSON & CLINKENBEARD

Shore & Delcourt (1996) characterized certain kinds of acceleration as
clumsy. For example, grade skipping was not always accompanied with adap-
tations to the curriculum to meet the educational needs of the accelerated stu-
dents.
Although research that clearly identifies and controls for the different fea-
tures of the various types of acceleration is in the beginning stages (Rogers
1991), the kinds of accelerative opportunities with the greatest positive impact
on student achievement are likely to be those that modify the curriculum with
subject matter acceleration or with fast-paced instruction. Simply changing
grade placement recognizes the prior achievement of students (Southern et al
1993), but it does not necessarily guarantee that appropriate curriculum expe-
riences will occur in the new placement.
Acceleration is generally a response to a particular child in the classroom or
school setting. That is, it is practice applied on a case-by-case basis to an indi-
vidual child or adolescent rather than a practice applied regularly to large
groups of children in the school. Southern et al (1993) note that because of its
individual nature and the concerns many practitioners have about the grade
skipping forms of acceleration, it is used conservatively by schools.
In contrast, accelerative, fast-paced content classes are more likely to be of-
fered to students on a volunteer basis in the college or university setting. These
programs, called Talent Searches, offer accelerated instruction in content areas
in after-school, Saturday, or summer venues. Students with high academic per-
formance and high aptitude scores related to the academic area in which they
are studying are selected to participate in accelerated courses. The Talent
Search programs have been documented extensively and provide a good deal
of the research support for acceleration as a practice uniquely suited to gifted
and talented learners (VanTassel-Baska 1997).
LEVEL OF CURRICULAR MATERIALS The use of rich and varied curriculum
materials has been an admonition voiced by educational reformers for a broad
range of students. The practice has particular salience for students with ad-
vanced reading capabilities for two reasons. First, evidence exists that the
reading levels of regular classroom texts have dropped over the past few dec-
ades (Chall 1994). Thus, capable readers are being exposed to what has been
identified as "dumbing down" of textbooks. Second, students with advanced
reading capability respond positively to interventions that raise the level of the
material they encounter in the classroom.
McCormick & Swassing (1982) surveyed reading programs nationally and
reported that educators regarded high-level reading materials an important fea-
ture of appropriate services for talented students. They noted that the Junior
Great Books program was the most frequently used program of curricular ma-
GIFTEDNESS: AN EXCEPTIONALITY EXAMINED 133

terials when particular specialized materials were reported. Martin & Cra-
mond (1983) also reported agreement that reading instruction should be taught
creatively at a high level with challenging materials; however, they also report
that such experiences are infrequent for students.
Recently, two large-scale federally funded studies indicate that adapting
curriculum and instruction to minimize exposure to low-level materials and to
increase exposure to high-level ones have benefits for academically talented
students. Reis et al (1993) investigated classrooms in which teachers had con-
densed the grade level curriculum materials for talented learners and compared
them with classrooms in which no such adaptations were made. Compacting,
as this adaption is called, includes documenting, generally through pretesting
or work samples, a student's knowledge and skills in the grade level curricu-
lum. If students demonstrate mastery of the material about to be taught, they
are provided with extended curriculum activities or alternatives during the
time that set of skills or curriculum topic is being covered in the classroom.
Reis and her colleagues demonstrated that with training, regular classroom
teachers can adapt the curriculum for students with positive impacts on both
student attitudes and learning.
The second investigation was an evaluation study of language arts curricu-
lum for advanced learners in grades four through six (VanTassel-Baska et al
1996). Outcome measures included a reading assessment that focused on liter-
ary analysis, a persuasive writing assessment, and an objective assessment of
grammatical understanding. In all three areas, able learners who received the
specialized advanced curriculum outperformed comparison groups. The effect
sizes for literary analysis, writing, and grammatical understanding were .11,
.99, and 1.57, respectively. The authors note that two key curricular elements
emerged as important from qualitative data provided by teachers. First, the
reading levels of the selections were advanced for the grade levels in which
they were introduced. Second, the curriculum emphasized abstract concepts in
literary analysis: theme, motivation, tone, and mood. Again the treatment of
these concepts was advanced beyond the traditional expectations for elemen-
tary students in grades four through six.
In conclusion, the practice of using high-level reading materials with aca-
demically gifted students is supported. While social justice demands that all
children be given rich curricular fare that interests them, the practice, when ap-
plied to academically talented learners, implies that the materials be substan-
tially above grade level norms.
School Practices to be Used with Caution
Although gifted students tend to do well academically, not all school practices
are beneficial for them. One example of a popular school practice that has
134 ROBINSON & CLINKENBEARD

modest positives and significant negatives for gifted students is cooperative
learning. Among the general population of students, cooperative learning ad-
vocates have documented many positive outcomes for the model (Slavin
1991). A number of these positive outcomes are social ones. There are reported
increases in cross-ethnic friendships (Warring et al 1985) and in acceptance
for students with disabilities (Madden & Slavin 1983). However, for achieve-
ment outcomes, the picture requires a finer lens. A recent study by Kenny et al
(1994) concludes that cooperative learning is a relatively weak pedagogical
strategy in terms of achievement for gifted students. They noted that the ab-
sence of a gifted student in a heterogeneous cooperative learning group did not
negatively affect the learning of other students in the group. A study by Lando
and Schneider (1997) provides further support for the caution with which stan-
dard cooperative learning models should be used. They found differences in
the types of verbal interactions among homogeneously and heterogeneously
constituted cooperative learning groups. Higher-level discourse and more
positive interactions occurred when gifted students were in cooperative learn-
ing groups with other high-ability students. These studies and a recent meta-
analysis on small group learning within classrooms indicate that group compo-
sition on the basis of ability or prior achievement does not have consistent ef-
fects for high, average, and low attaining students (Lou et al 1996). In addition,
a study by Mulryan (1992) that documents that passivity, and therefore possi-
ble disengagement from learning, occurs in heterogeneous cooperative learn-
ing groups by both high- and low-attaining members lends support to the cau-
tion with which this educational practice should be used with academically tal-
ented learners (Robinson 1997).
SUMMARY Educational practices with research support include the use of vari-
ous forms of acceleration and the use of high-level and rigorous curriculum
materials. The relatively stronger research base in these areas is in part due to
the use of focused identification measures that are closely related to the serv-
ices provided to the students on the basis of them. For example, mathemati-
cally talented students are located on the basis of prior mathematics achieve-
ment and aptitude and provided with accelerated and enriched instruction in
that content area. In contrast, other popular educational practices like coopera-
tive learning do not provide consistently positive outcomes for gifted learners.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH
Research on the Psychology of Giftedness and Talent
Although intriguing in itself, the study of an exceptionality like giftedness
which deviates from the norm in a positive way can inform our understanding
GIFTEDNESS: AN EXCEPTIONALITY EXAMINED 135

of human potential generally. The examination of cases of advanced develop-
ment and instances of precocious performance provide a window on the condi-
tions and processes that help children and youth maximize their potential.
In terms of research on the psychology of giftedness and talent, the most
promising directions are those that take a finer-grained look at the variability
among talented children and adolescents, in other words, within-group differ-
ences. The comparisons made between talented youth and the general cohort
are useful, but they are not the sole standard by which exceptionality can be ex-
amined. At present, the study of these within-group differences would be most
fruitfully pursued descriptively rather than comparatively. For example, stud-
ies of talented performance outside the general intellectual domain would pro-
vide empirical information about the richer array of variables that broadened
definitions of giftedness include. Studies of talent development in different do-
mains, among culturally diverse populations, and in youth with disabilities are
among the most promising.
In addition to informing our understanding of human potential, the study
of psychological variables in groups of gifted students allows the researcher
to hold constant the effects of ability or achievement. For example, for vari-
ables that are correlated with intellectual ability such as motivation and self-
esteem, it is possible to examine how they operate in depth, over time, and
across age and gender without the confounding effects of differential ability.
Although ability can be controlled as an independent variable, it could be fruit-
ful to examine other variables in depth within a group of high intellectual func-
tioning.
Finally, the study of students with high ability but low achievement (often
termed "gifted underachievers") is a unique opportunity for the intensive, per-
haps longitudinal, investigation of motivational variables. With intellectual
ability not a factor, how do expectancy and value, competence, and control op-
erate to depress achievement? Investigations of this sort shed light on the psy-
chological characteristics of talented youth, but they also inform our under-
standing of basic psychological processes.
Research on School Practices
One of the key interests to the field of gifted education is to determine which of
its practices are uniquely suited to talented children and adolescents; which are
practices defined as good in general for all learners. Additional work is needed
to illuminate the distinction. Practices that are good general education can be
advocated for talented learners from that context. In other words, it is no less
important to advocate for such services for talented learners, but the link be-
tween general and specialized education should be acknowledged. Practices
that are uniquely suited to academically talented students will benefit from fur-
136 ROBINSON & CLINKENBEARD

ther and finer grained analyses to determine under which conditions they are
best implemented to develop students' gifts and talents.
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at
http://www.AnnualReviews.org.
GIFTEDNESS: AN EXCEPTIONALITY EXAMINED 137
Literature Cited
Alexander J, Carr M, Schwanenflugel P. 1995.
Development of metacognition in gifted
children: directions for future research.
Dev. Rev. 15:1­37
Benbow C. 1992. Academic achievement in
mathematics and science of students be-
tween ages 13 and 23: Are there differ-
ences among students in the top one per-
cent of mathematical ability? J. Educ. Psy-
chol. 84:51­61
Benbow CP, Arjmand O, Walberg HJ. 1991.
Educational productivity predictors
among mathematically talented students.
J. Educ. Res. 84:215­23
Borland JH, Wright L. 1994. Identifying
young, potentially gifted economically
disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Q.
38:164­71
Butterfield EC, Feretti RP. 1987. Toward a
theoretical integration of cognitive hy-
potheses about intellectual differences
among children. In Cognition in Special
Children: Comparative Approaches to Re-
tardation, Learning Disabilities, and Gift-
edness, ed. JG Borkowski, JD Day, pp.
195­233. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 244 pp.
Carr M, Alexander J, Schwanenflugel P. 1996.
Where gifted children do and do not excel
on metacognitive tasks. Roeper Rev. 18:
212­17
Chall J. 1994. What students were reading 100
years ago. Am. Educ. 18(2):26­33
Cheng P. 1993. Metacognition and giftedness:
the state of the relationship. Gifted Child
Q. 37:105­12
Clark GA, Zimmerman E. 1983. At the age of
six I gave up a magnificent career as a
painter: seventy years of research about
identifying students with superior abilities
in the visual arts. Gifted Child Q. 27:
180­84
Colangelo N, Davis GA, eds. 1997. Handbook
of Gifted Education. Boston: Allyn & Ba-
con. 582 pp. 2nd ed.
Csikszentmihalyi M, Rathunde K, Whalen S.
1993. Talented Teenagers: The Roots of
Success and Failure. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press. 307 pp.
Csikszentmihalyi M, Robinson RE. 1986. Cul-
ture, time and the development of talent.
See Sternberg & Davidson 1986, pp.
264­84
Daurio SP. 1979. Educational enrichment ver-
sus acceleration: a review of the literature.
In Educating the Gifted: Acceleration and
Enrichment, ed. WC George, SJ Cohn, JC
Stanley, pp. 13­63. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press
Davidson JE. 1986. The role of insight in gift-
edness. See Sternberg & Davidson 1986,
pp. 201­22
Emerick LJ. 1992. Academic underachieve-
ment among the gifted: students' percep-
tions of factors that reverse the pattern.
Gifted Child Q. 36:140­46
Feldhusen JF. 1986. A conception of gifted-
ness. See Sternberg & Davidson 1986, pp.
112­27
Feldhusen JF, Jarwan F. 1993. Identification
of gifted and talented youth for educa-
tional programs. See Heller et al 1993, pp.
233­51
Feldman DH. 1993. Child prodigies: a distinc-
tive form of giftedness. Gifted Child Q.
37:188­93
Feldman DH, Goldsmith LT. 1991. Nature's
Gambit: Child Prodigies and the Develop-
ment of Human Potential. New York:
Teachers College Press
Ford DY. 1993. An investigation of the para-
dox of underachievement among gifted
Black students. Roeper Rev. 16:78­84
Frasier M, Passow AH. 1994. Toward a New
Paradigm for Identifying Talent Potential.
Storrs, CT: Natl. Res. Cent. Gifted Tal-
ented
Gagné F. 1985. Giftedness and talent: reexam-
ining a reexamination of the definitions.
Gifted Child Q. 29:103 -12
Gagné F. 1991. Toward a differentiated model

138 ROBINSON & CLINKENBEARD
of giftedness and talent. In Handbook of
Gifted Education. ed. N Colangelo, GA
Davis, pp. 65­80. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Gallagher JG, Courtright RD. 1986. The edu-
cational definition of giftedness and its
policy implications. See Sternberg &
Davidson 1986, pp. 93­111
Gross M. 1994. The highly gifted: their nature
and needs. In Talent Development: Theo-
ries and Practice, ed. JB Hansen, SB Hoo-
ver, pp. 257­80. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/
Hunt. 338 pp.
Harris JJ, Ford DY. 1991. Identifying and nur-
turing the promise of gifted Black Ameri-
can children. J. Negro Educ. 60(1):3­18
Harter S. 1985. Manual for the Self-Per-
ception Scale for Children. Unpublished
manuscript.
Heller KA, Monks FJ, Passow AH, eds. 1993.
International Handbook of Research and
Development of Giftedness and Talent.
Oxford: Pergamon. 964 pp.
Henry NB, ed. 1958. Education of the Gifted.
(The 57th Yearbook of the National Soci-
ety for the Study of Education, Part II.)
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Hoge RD, McSheffrey R. 1991. An investiga-
tion of self-concept in gifted children. Ex-
cept. Child. 57:238­45
Jackson NE, Butterfield EC. 1986. A concep-
tion of giftedness designed to promote re-
search. See Sternberg & Davidson 1986,
pp. 151­81
Janos PM, Robinson NM. 1985. Psychosocial
development in intellectually gifted chil-
dren. In The Gifted and Talented: Devel-
opmental Perspectives, ed. FD Horowitz,
M O'Brien, pp. 149­95. Washington, DC:
Am. Psychol. Assoc. 477 pp.
Kenny DA, Archambault FX Jr, Hallmark
BW. 1994. The Effects of Group Composi-
tion on Gifted and Nongifted Elementary
Students in Cooperative Learning Groups.
Rep. 94108. Storrs, CT: Univ. Conn. Natl.
Res. Cent. Gifted Talented
Kline BE, Short EB. 1991a. Changes in emo-
tional resilience: gifted adolescent boys.
Roeper Rev. 13:184­87
Kline BE, Short EB. 1991b. Changes in emo-
tional resilience: gifted adolescent fe-
males. Roeper Rev. 13:118­21
Kulik JA, Kulik CC. 1984. Effects of acceler-
ated instruction on students. Rev. Educ.
Res. 54:409­25
Kunkel MA, Chapa B, Patterson G, Walling
DD. 1995. The experience of giftedness: a
concept map. Gifted Child Q. 39:126­34
Lando BZ, Schneider BH. 1997. Intellectual
contributions and mutual support among
developmentally advanced children in ho-
mogeneous and heterogeneous work/dis-
cussion groups. Gifted Child Q. 42:44­57
Lou Y, Abrami PC, Spence J, Paulsen C,
Chambers B, d'Apollonia S. 1996. Within-
class grouping: a meta-analysis. Rev.
Educ. Res. 66:423­58
Lovecky DV. 1994. Exceptionally different
children: different minds. Roeper Rev. 17:
116­20
Luthar SS, Zigler E, Goldstein D. 1992. Psy-
chosocial adjustment among intellectu-
ally gifted adolescents: the role of cog-
nitive-developmental and experiential fac-
tors. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 33:
361­73
Madden N, Slavin R. 1983. Effects of coopera-
tive learning on the social acceptance of
mainstreamed academically handicapped
students. J. Spec. Educ. 17:171­83
Maker CJ. 1996. Identification of gifted mi-
nority students: a national problem,
needed changes and a promising solution.
Gifted Child Q. 40:41­50
Marland SP. 1971. Education of the Gifted and
Talented. US Congr. Rep. 72­5020. Wash-
ington, DC: US Off. Educ.
Martin CE, Cramond B. 1983. Creative read-
ing: Is it being taught to the gifted in ele-
mentary schools? J. Educ. Gifted 5:34­43
Mayseless O. 1993. Gifted adolescents and in-
timacy in close same-sex relationships. J.
Youth Adolesc. 22:135­46
McCormick S, Swassing RH. 1982. Reading
instruction for the gifted: a survey of pro-
grams. J. Educ. Gifted 5:34­43
Mills CJ, Tissot SL. 1995. Identifying aca-
demic potential in students from under-
represented populations: Is using the Ra-
vens Progressive Matrices a good idea?
Gifted Child Q. 39:209­17
Mulryan CM. 1992. Student passivity during
cooperative small groups in mathematics.
J. Educ. Res. 85:261­73
Olszewski-Kubilius PM, Kulieke MJ, Krasney
N. 1988. Personality dimensions of gifted
adolescents: a review of the empirical lit-
erature. Gifted Child Q. 32:347­52
Pollins LD. 1983. The effects of acceleration
on the social and emotional development
of gifted students. In Academic Precocity,
ed. CP Benbow, JC Stanley, pp. 160­78.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ.
Press
Pyryt MC, Mendaglio S. 1994. The multidi-
mensional self-concept; a comparison of
gifted and average-ability adolescents. J.
Educ. Gifted 17:299­305
Reis SM, Westberg KL, Kulikovich J, Rogers
JB, Smist JM. 1993. Why Not Let High
Ability Students Start School in January?

GIFTEDNESS: AN EXCEPTIONALITY EXAMINED 139
Storrs, CT: Natl. Res. Cent. Gifted Tal-
ented
Renzulli JS. 1978. What makes giftedness?
Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kap-
pan 60:180­84, 261
Renzulli JS. 1986. The three-ring conception
of giftedness: a developmental model for
creative productivity. See Sternberg &
Davidson 1986, pp. 53­92
Roberts SM, Lovett SB. 1994. Examining the
"F" in gifted; academically gifted adoles-
cents' physiological and affective re-
sponses to scholastic failure. J. Educ.
Gifted 17:241­59
Robinson A. 1992. Promising practices for tal-
ented children: What does the research
say? Understanding Our Gifted 55(3):1­3
Robinson A. 1997. Cooperative learning for
talented students: emergent issues and im-
plications. See Colangelo & Davis 1997,
pp. 243­52
Robinson NM, Olszewski-Kubilius P. 1996.
Gifted and talented children: issues for pe-
diatricians. Pediatr. Rev. 17(12):427­34
Rogers KB. 1986. Do the gifted think and
learn differently? A review of recent re-
search and its implications for instruction.
J. Educ. Gifted 10:17­39
Ross P. 1993. National Excellence: A Case for
Developing America's Talent. Washing-
ton, DC: Off. Educ. Res. Improve., US
Off. Educ.
Scott MS, Deuel LLS, Jean-Francois B, Ur-
bano RC. 1996. Identifying cognitively
gifted ethnic minority children. Gifted
Child Q. 40:147­53
Shore BM, Cornell DG, Robinson A, Ward
VS. 1991. Recommended Practices in
Gifted Education: A Critical Analysis.
New York: Teachers Coll. Press
Shore BM, Delcourt MAB. 1996. Effective
curricular and program practices in gifted
education and the interface with general
education. J. Educ. Gifted 20:138­54
Shore BM, Koller M, Dover A. 1994. More
from the water jars: a reanalysis of
problem-solving performance among
gifted and nongifted children. Gifted Child
Q. 38:179­83
Slavin RE. 1991. Synthesis of research on co-
operative learning. Educ. Leadership
48(5):71­82
Southern WT, Jones ED. 1991. Academic ac-
celeration: background and issues. In The
Academic Acceleration of Gifted Children,
ed. WT Southern, ED Jones, pp. 1­29.
New York: Teachers College Press
Southern WT, Jones ED, Stanley JC. 1993.
Acceleration and enrichment: the context
and development of program options. See
Heller et al 1993, pp. 387­409
Sternberg RJ. 1986. A triarchic theory of intel-
lectual giftedness. See Sternberg & David-
son 1986, pp. 223­43
Sternberg RJ, Davidson JE, eds. 1986. Con-
ceptions of Giftedness. New York: Cam-
bridge Univ. Press. 460 pp.
Sternberg RJ, Davidson JE. 1985. Cognitive
development in the gifted and talented. In
The Gifted and Talented: Developmental
Perspectives, ed. FD Horowitz, M
O'Brien, pp. 37­74. Washington, DC: Am.
Psychol. Assoc. 477 pp.
Swiatek MA. 1995. An empirical investiga-
tion of the social coping strategies used by
gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Q. 39:
154­60
Tannenbaum AJ. 1986. Giftedness: a psychso-
cial approach. See Sternberg & Davidson
1986, pp. 21­52
Terman LM. 1925. Genetic studies of genius.
Mental and Physical Characteristics of a
Thousand Gifted Children, Vol. 1. Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
VanTassel-Baska J. 1997. Contributions to
gifted education of the Talent Search con-
cept. In Psychometric and Social Issues
Concerning Intellect and Talent, ed. CP
Benbow, D Lubinski. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. In press
VanTassel-Baska J, Johnson DT, Hughes CE,
Boyce LN. 1996. A study of language arts
curriculum effectiveness with gifted learn-
ers. J. Educ. Gifted 19:461­80
VanTassel-Baska J, Olszewski-Kubilius P,
Kulieke M. 1994. A study of self-concept
and social support in advantaged and dis-
advantaged seventh and eighth grade
gifted students. Roeper Rev. 16:186­91
Warring D, Johnson D, Maruyama G, Johnson
R. 1985. Impact of different types of coop-
erative learning on cross-ethnic and cross-
sex relationships. J. Educ. Psychol. 77:
53­59
Whitmore JR, Maker CJ. 1985. Intellectual
Giftedness in Disabled Persons. Rock-
ville, MD: Aspen
Wilkinson SC. 1993. WISC-R profiles of chil-
dren with superior intellectual ability.
Gifted Child Q. 37:84­91
Willard-Holt C. 1994. Recognizing Talent:
Cross-Case Study of Two High Potential
Students with Cerebral Palsy. Storrs, CT:
Natl. Res. Cent. Gifted Talented
Winner E, Martino G. 1993. See Heller et al
1993, pp. 253­82
Witty P. 1958. See Henry 1958, pp. 41­63