Maximizing the potential of gifted learners through a developmental framework of affective curriculum

Abstract

There is a growing demand for equal support of social–emotional learning across the globe. In the United States, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning has shed significant light on the power of affective development for school-aged children, indicating that, without it, students are limited in their ability to reach their full potential. Cavilla’s Taxonomy of Affective Curriculum for Gifted Learners was developed to provide a framework that reduces the disparity in focus between cognitive and social–emotional development for a population that requires affective support in response to the effects of asynchronous development as well as an inherent proclivity for heightened capacity for emotional intelligence and moral development. The taxonomy leads gifted learners, whose identification and supporting services result from their display of academic aptitude within the top 10% of their peers or performing two standard deviations above the mean, or higher, on a personal intelligence test as defined by the National Association for Gifted Children toward their full potential through the eventual development of specific social–emotional abilities, such as harmonious passion, acceptance of ambiguity, willingness to view failure as opportunity for growth, and an increased ability to set and attain meaningful goals.

Keywords

Social–emotional development affective education affective curriculum gifted learners

The concept of learning has evolved into one essentially synonymous with academic development. However, social and emotional learning (SEL) has emerged as a crucial counterpart to intellectual growth with a growing body of research illustrating the reciprocal relationship between students’ cognitive and affective development (Payton et al., 2008; Zins et al., 2007). Ironically, this critical aspect of students’ education is often overlooked by educators due to a lack of understanding of its importance or the absence of a cohesive system that properly integrates it into the daily curriculum (Hebert, 2010; Landis and Reschly, 2013; Peterson and Lorimer, 2011, 2012; Rinn et al., 2010; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2009). As a result, a vast majority of students’ social–emotional development is being overlooked altogether or, at best, only supported through fragmented attempts at character education that limit their ability to optimize their overall development.

A meta-analysis of 213 school-based programs supporting over 270,000 students revealed that infusion of SEL into the curriculum resulted in gains of up to 11% in performance on standardized test measures of reading and math ability across all grade levels from kindergarten through 12 as compared to students in programs lacking SEL components (Durlak et al., 2011). This supports the scientifically based link between SEL and school success, championed by Zins et al. (2007), who relayed that children exposed to SEL in school have a greater propensity to

integrate thinking, feeling, and behaving to achieve important life tasks [as well as] feel motivated to succeed, to believe in their success, to communicate well with teachers, to set academic goals, to organize themselves to achieve these goals, to overcome obstacles, and so forth. (p. 194, 196)

While the literature clearly indicates the positive effects of SEL for all students, those learners who are gifted have an acute need for the inclusion of SEL in their school experience. Due to their asynchronous development, meaning that their intellectual capacity far exceeds their chronological age, many gifted students display high levels of emotional intensity and robust levels of moral justice (Silverman, 1997). In addition to asynchronous development, motivational factors, ineffective self-regulation, and frustration with rote and repetitive curriculum, delivered by teachers who may think that requiring students to do more volume of work rather than more quality of work, all have the potential to spin a gifted learner into a period of underachievement (Hebert, 2010; Landis and Reschly, 2013; McCoach and Siegle, 2003; Reis and McCoach, 2000). As a result, some of our most promising students may be floundering in boredom, consumed with apathy toward a system that appears irrelevant, or break down emotionally due to lack of training and support of the coping skills required to manage and maximize their potential for high achievement and creative thinking (Folsom, 2005; Kanevsky and Keighley, 2003; McCoach and Siegle, 2003; Pfeiffer and Stocking, 2000; Reis and McCoach, 2000). While the proposed taxonomy of affective curriculum is not intended to be an intervention for gifted underachievement, its implementation could curb the frequency of this phenomenon. This proactive, rather than reactive, rationale for the proposed taxonomy’s use not only has the possibility of lowering the number of cases of gifted underachievement but would also naturally support the development of SEL for well-adjusted, high-performing gifted students who require guidance in order to reach their actual level of potential, which is represented by the culmination of intellectual competence, affective balance and application, and an ability to modify one’s behavior in order to maximize opportunities in life while maintaining elevated levels of moral and ethical decision-making (Zins et al., 2007). Using academic indicators as the only reference point to determine a gifted student’s level of success in relation to full potential in life is ineffective and uninformed; moreover, the lack of a purposefully sequenced, research-based curricula to support healthy social–emotional development not only exacerbates the effects of asynchronous development among gifted learners but also stifles their potential for reaching their innate capacity for elevated levels of cognitive and emotional intelligence.

Given the complex combinations and multifaceted nature of the potential causation for gifted underachievement, defined by Reis and McCoach (2000) as a significant gap between known ability or potential and actual performance, breaking down barriers through the affective domain, thus helping students become aware that they are not realizing their full potential while also stimulating a desire to change the pattern, may be a crucial step required in trying to turn these disconcerting situations around (Cavilla, 2015). The lack of consistent, supported interconnectedness between cognition and affective growth has significant potential to either cause or enhance underachievement among gifted learners (Folsom, 2005). Due to their proclivity for asynchronous development, some gifted students suffer from poor impulse control and display outbursts of emotionality at home and in the classroom—all of which may culminate in feelings of self-deprecation, lowered self-esteem, and possibly short-term or long-term underachievement (Pfeiffer and Stocking, 2000). If these feelings remain unchecked, more severe psychological and personality traits may manifest, such as defiance, false senses of personal accomplishment, depression, or chronic power struggles (Pfeiffer and Stocking, 2000). In fact, these behaviors may fester to a point where giftedness is masked altogether and students are misidentified as learning disabled or as possessing emotional or behavioral disorders (Johnson, 2000). Additionally, without the infusion of consistent affective development, approximately 25% of gifted students develop dysfunctional perfectionist tendencies, which often lead not only to elevated levels of anxiety and mood disorder but also heightened levels of fear of failure and lowered feelings of self-worth (Neumeister, 2007)—all of which have significant potential to ignite underachievement in these learners.

Longitudinal studies, such as those by Terman and Oden (1947) and Hollingworth (1937), have shown that gifted students most often grow into healthy, well-adjusted, successful individuals with a range of interests, talents, and social connections. However, oftentimes, this level of success or fulfillment of one’s natural capacity is measured by intellectual prowess and aptitude. Without taking into account social–emotional development and its impact on concepts such as emotional intelligence and moral development, educators and advocates of the gifted are not looking at the whole picture and, perhaps unintentionally, are limiting the scope of what full potential may look like for gifted individuals. Moreover, studies indicate that a majority of gifted high school students have moral and emotional capacity of non-gifted postgraduate students; however, they are clear to relay that this capacity does not equate development and that it must be nurtured and strategically taught in order to come to fruition (Lee and Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006; Tirri, 2010). Therefore, if giftedness is considered a malleable, fluid process rather than a fixed, static condition, then an implication of neglecting the affective development of gifted students is that they may not reach their full potential (Kaufman, 2013; Sternberg, 2012).

In their discussion of emotional intelligence in relation to giftedness, Mayer et al. (2001) relayed that “the cognitive system carries out abstract reasoning about emotions, while the emotion system enhances cognitive capacity” (p. 132). Therefore, it seems feasible to claim that gifted students not only have greater ability to develop their social–emotional capacity but that the relationship is reciprocal. The continued dialogue and investigation into the power of affective education has not gone unheard, with a growing number of educators rating social–emotional development higher than that of academic ability when attempting to identify and describe the “ideal student” (Gallagher et al., 2011: 12). The researchers who founded the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) have developed a framework for SEL (see Table 1) that, while not mandated by legislation or enforced by state or local departments of education, serves as a solid foundation for the proposed taxonomy of affective curriculum for gifted learners.

Table 1.

Framework of person-centered key SEL competencies (Zins et al., 2007).

Self-Awareness	Identifying and recognizing emotions
	Accurate self-perception
	Recognizing strengths, needs, and values
	Self-efficacy
	Spirituality
Social Awareness	Perspective taking
	Empathy
	Appreciating diversity
	Respect for others
Responsible Decision Making	Problem identification and situation analysis
	Problem solving
	Evaluation and reflection
	Personal, moral, and ethical responsibility
Self-Management	Impulse control and stress management
	Self-motivation and discipline
	Goal setting and organizational skills
Relationship Management	Communication, social engagement,and building relationships
	Working cooperatively
	Negotiation, refusal, and conflict management
	Help seeking and providing

SEL: social and emotional learning.

Description of the taxonomy of affective curriculum for gifted learners (see Figure 1)

Level 1: Kindergarten through grade 1 (see Figure 2)

The core affective skills of cooperation and responsibility serve to enhance students’ interpersonal relationships through whole and small group learning as well as begin to facilitate internalization of the rationale for schooling as students begin to accept the responsibilities incumbent upon a successful learner (Hägglund and Samuelsson, 2009; Payton et al., 2008). The construct of respect serves two purposes: It helps young gifted learners to realize that different settings, such as the classroom versus the home, have different expectations and, in order to successfully navigate each experience, one must give deference to the system or people running the environment in order to be a successful participant. Another aspect of respect that has interplay at this stage is respecting the rights, ideas, and property of others. At this developmental stage, young gifted learners are quickly determining the boundaries of acceptable behavior as well as gauging how others respond to their actions and are quickly formulating an internal concept of how they chose to behave, whose responses to their actions hold the most value, and what actions are deemed positive and which ones garner undesirable responses.

Figure 1.

Taxonomy of affective curriculum for gifted learners (Cavilla, 2016).

Figure 2.

Theoretical connections from level 1 of the taxonomy of affective curriculum for gifted learners (Cavilla, 2016).

While cooperation, respect, and responsibility serve to ensure success within the school environment and ignite the beginning stages of successful interpersonal relationships, the construct of self-image holds a different, and critical, meaning for young gifted students. Due to asynchronous development, it is essential for teachers of the young gifted to ensure that the trait of giftedness itself is internalized and accepted as a positive one. By including giftedness as one of the positive characteristics of the classroom community, the young gifted learner will thrive and evolve in a setting where, rather than feeling stigmatized by his or her giftedness, he or she will feel like an essential part of the social fabric who can positively contribute to the success of the class as well as solidify his or her own personal ability through application of creative and critical thinking and connections to higher level learning.

Self-image is directly rooted in CASEL’s pillar of self-awareness. By developing a positive sense of self through acceptance and validation of one’s innate abilities, gifted students in the primary grades will feel empowered and unique rather than stigmatized and isolated. The construct of respect correlates with the social awareness pillar. By being aware of the external expectations of the teacher, school, and peers, young gifted learners internalize the various perspectives needed to evolve into an intellectually and affectively successful student. Through a display of willingness to accept and abide by the social norms and expectations presented in the classroom, young gifted learners begin to realize how their choices and decisions affect the types of outcomes and responses received in the learning experience. Cooperation is also linked to the pillar of social awareness because, in order to be successful, the gifted student must discern the common goal that he or she is working toward achieving with his or her peers as well as take into consideration the various strengths, weaknesses, and perspectives of the others in the group in order to minimize conflict and maximize performance. Of course, cooperation is not solely isolated to peers; cooperating with the teacher and school rules is also an essential component of being socially aware of the norms and expectations of the classroom learning environment. Given this tenet, cooperation is also directly linked to the fifth pillar of CASEL’s framework: relationship management. In learning to cooperate with others as well as with the external rules and internal expectations for performance, young gifted learners are taking the first step in evaluating their interpersonal effectiveness and modifying their approach based on reactions from peers and adults. Lastly, the affective construct of responsibility connects to both the third and the fourth pillar of the CASEL framework: responsible decision-making and self-management. Through the identification of the various tasks and problems presented to them in the context of intellectual and social development, gifted students begin to internalize their role as a successful participant within the developmental process. Through this, motivation blooms and discipline may shift from external, reactive responses to more internalized forms of self-control, evaluation, and reflection.

Level 2: Grade 2 through 4

From the basic skill of responsibility, students migrate from mere acceptance of roles and duties as a learner to actually managing their behavior, impulse control, and time management in order to work toward effective self-regulation—a skill that takes many years to develop and perfect, but is immensely powerful in supporting successful endeavors in later years of development (Ryan and Deci, 2000). From having a solid image and acceptance of one’s giftedness, gifted students at this developmental age will move past global self-esteem in order to honor and celebrate areas of strength while not defining themselves by areas of weakness. By having a solid perception of their overall ability, the goal is for gifted learners to face their areas of challenge with tenacity and effective planning so that they can compensate their areas of weakness or intellectual imbalance with their areas of strength and vitality. Through honing in on areas of specific self-esteem, gifted students can slowly begin to realize that their ability and impact on their peers and the classroom community is multifaceted and fluid—changing over time depending on the level of effort and focus given to each area. Lastly, the initial affective skills of cooperation and respect converge into the critical affective construct of empathy, hailed by Goleman (2006) as one of the hallmark skills needed for elevated levels of emotional intelligence.

While the three constructs in level 2 of the taxonomy touch all five of the CASEL pillars of person-centered SEL, with students continuing to refine their personal and social awareness as well as continue to manage their own behaviors, the primary foci of this level center on responsible decision-making, primarily through a combination of self-regulation and empathy, and on managing relationships, both with peers and teachers, through all three affective skills proposed at this level (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Theoretical connections from level 2 of the taxonomy of affective curriculum for gifted learners (Cavilla, 2016).

In order to support the first pillar of CASEL’s SEL framework, gifted students will learn to delineate between their global self-esteem, which is directly related to their internalized vision of self-concept and their specific self-esteems, which vary and can include academic self-esteem, social self-esteem, and so forth. Social awareness is also blossoming at this time as students begin to empathize and attempt to better understand the reasons why other people feel and respond to their actions and the various situations and discussions that arise in class. For young gifted learners at this stage, acute levels of empathy may already be present (Silverman, 1997); therefore, this affective skill is also connected to the CASEL standards of responsible decision-making and social awareness. By taking into consideration the possible feelings and perspectives of others, gifted students in the intermediate grades are refining their personal decision-making and actions based on the consideration of their peers, which is a critical step in the continued development of interpersonal relationships—another hallmark of effective emotional intelligence (Goleman, 2006). However, while empathy certainly plays a role in fostering positive peer relations, it is also a critical element in responsible decision-making. Without taking into account the possible ramifications of one’s actions and the potential responses from others, students are not widening their focus enough to create multifaceted approaches to solving complex problems. Even if they do not agree or understand why others respond differently than themselves to situations or problems, taking these alternate viewpoints will only serve to enhance the ethical and considerate decision-making needed to thrive in today’s multicultural and globally networked society. Moreover, responsible decision-making is also influenced by the effective understanding of one’s specific self-esteem. In planning and implementing actions for task completion, gifted students must be aware of their strengths and weaknesses in order to better determine how to solve a problem independently or collaboratively and to ascertain which areas of the problem-solving activity may require additional scaffolding or support from another individual with strengths in those areas—the essence of learning. Lastly, the continued development of self-regulation certainly serves to support the pillar of self-management with students slowly beginning to become more independent in their choices of knowledge acquisition as well as their initiative to approach learning for the sake of learning rather than view it as an unnecessary task only to be completed for a grade or recognition.

Level 3: Grade 5 through 8

The third level of the taxonomy begins specifically at fifth grade in order to allow gifted learners a full year of practice and refinement of the complex skills needed to fully master the advanced curriculum and social strains of middle school. At this level, self-regulation continues to develop into application of grit—defined by Duckworth et al. (2007) as perseverance and passion for long-term goals; working strenuously toward challenges, maintaining effort and interest over years despite failure, adversity, and plateaus in progress—and the eventual ignition of intrinsic motivation. Moreover, empathy, which allows the gifted learner to consider problems and situations beyond their own context, fuels the ability to think divergently. Lastly, accurate representations of specific self-esteem allow students to delve into the most crucial of the “self” skills—self-efficacy, described by Ryan and Deci (2000) as the key to highly effective self-regulation and intrinsic motivation. In addition, a desire to help others through intrinsic motivation as well as the ability to accurately determine areas of strength and weakness will fuel the construct of curiosity. The major shift at this stage is from relationship management to self-management and self-awareness as students enter adolescence (see Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Theoretical connections from level 3 of the taxonomy of affective curriculum for gifted learners (Cavilla, 2016).

As gifted students prepare to enter the secondary grades, the affective focus shifts from external to internal, with the CASEL standards of self-awareness and self-management taking center stage. Of utmost importance to the strengthening of self-regulation is grit. As academic and social–emotional tasks continue to intensify and gain complexity, the ability to persevere and commit the requisite time needed to solve complex problems is vital. At this level of gifted education, the onus of learning is often placed more directly on the student with the teacher acting as a coach rather than a delivery agent of information. As such, the gifted student at this stage must develop grit in order to defeat the obstacles, confusion, and frustration that may arise from periods of independent research, completion of projects that require synthesis from multiple subject areas, and exposure to advanced curricular content and leadership opportunities that are designed to take the gifted learner out of his or her independent learning zone and into his or her actual level of learning ability. Of course, being able to determine areas that require extra exertion of effort and adherence to time management also require gifted students’ ability to be able to effectively judge his or her ability to complete a task, which is the core definition of self-efficacy.

Level 4: Grade 9 through 12

At the top of the proposed framework lie the four constructs that not only will take gifted learners through high school but will enhance their performance in higher education and set the tone for high levels of leadership, altruism, and self-fulfillment in their adult lives. From divergent thinking fueled by empathy to the continued growth of intrinsic motivation, the construct of harmonious passion takes root and has the potential to guide gifted students toward career choices and talents that have the potential to enhance society through innovative and novel thinking. Moreover, the ability to apply grit in the face of obstacles or challenges grows into a willingness to accept and embrace failure as the ultimate learning opportunity—cementing the growth mind-set that is so critical at the highest levels of cognitive performance as well as so valued in the professional arena. Additionally, at this phase, curiosity and divergent thinking provide a foundation for the acceptance of ambiguity, thus allowing gifted learners to use the combination of their intellectual and affective ability to confront problems and situations with either no clear solution or multiple solutions that must be analyzed and synthesized in order to produce the most ideal result. Lastly, the skill of self-efficacy, in combination with strengthened self-regulation, facilitates young gifted adults’ ability to set and attain purposeful and meaningful goals in order to move toward optimal development and personal fulfillment across the educational, career, and social spectrums.

At this level of taxonomy, the affective constructs have elevated in complexity to the point that each of the four skills, growth from failure, goal attainment, acceptance of ambiguity, and passion, touch all five of the CASEL frameworks (see Figure 5). For example, in order to view and accept mistakes and failure as opportunities for growth or continued mastery, students must have the requisite self-awareness to know that they are capable of mastery as well as be able to delineate what parts of their cognitive or affective self must be modified in order to attain greater success in subsequent attempts at resolving a problem, which is directly linked to self-management. Moreover, gifted young adults must use their interpersonal and self-regulation skills in order to more effectively collaborate with peers and professionals who can help to inform their refined approaches to problem-solving as well as create timeframes and structures that allow for gradual progression to examination and analysis of the problem at hand.

Figure 5.

Theoretical connections from level 4 of the taxonomy of affective curriculum for gifted learners (Cavilla, 2016).

Similarly, goal attainment rests firmly not only on the ability to manage one’s self and make responsible decisions but also within the self so that goals are set which are meaningful in the context of the young gifted learner’s life as well as purposeful in their connection to creative and altruistic desires to reach one’s optimal potential in life and society. Moreover, it is a strong connection to social awareness, relationships, and an inner desire to help the greater good that fuel gifted learners’ willingness to accept ambiguous situations and outcomes. With their intense levels of empathy and inner desire to continually refine their knowledge, young gifted adults may give more credence to the potential for a solution than they do to the fear of not knowing what an exact outcome may be. Lastly, while the fuel for passion most certainly lies within the self and one’s awareness of the activities and knowledge that truly excites them, relationships and social awareness certainly play a role in the discovery of passions that help others in society as well as through the external feedback one receives as motivation to continue focusing and building upon these areas of interest. In addition, the gifted learner must learn to manage not only how much time he or she spends on a preferred activity but also how he or she will apply the knowledge, resources, and potential impact of his or her passion to his or her field of study, organization, or society at large.

Maximizing the developmental potential of gifted learners

Universal implementation of SEL increases students’ academic performance, lowers behavioral issues in the classroom, and also enhances students’ view of themselves (Payton et al., 2008). While these are clearly positive assets for all students, the potentially beneficial impact for gifted students is even greater, given their innate proclivity for superior levels of emotional and moral development (Mayer et al., 2001; Tirri, 2010) and their potential for struggles due to asynchronous development, which is often misdiagnosed as a potential disability rather than as a discrepancy between psychological and chronological age (Silverman, 1997). Ongoing research continues to support these precepts, such as a study by Yuen and Fong (2012) that called for recognizing the individual needs of gifted learners both academically and socially–emotionally as well as adjured educators of the gifted to give equal deference to students’ affective development as compared to their academic and cognitive growth.

A call for the inclusion of SEL in the classroom, particularly for gifted learners, has been ongoing for decades—from Alpren (1974), Buscaglia (1978), and Vare (1979) to contemporary researchers such as Hebert (2010), Sternberg (2012), and Belfield et al. (2015), with a plethora of small and large research studies across the globe (Bate et al., 2012; Greenberg et al., 2003; Lee and Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006; Payton et al., 2008; Peterson and Lorimer, 2012; Tirri and Kuusisto, 2013; Wang and Ku, 2010; Zins et al., 2007) indicating the power of affective education. Additionally, nascent research attested that SEL actually has economic impact as well, with a cost benefit analysis of multiple SEL programs indicating an average return of 11% on every dollar invested as well as an average lifetime salary increase of nearly US$46,000 for individuals with refined levels of social–emotional development (Belfield et al., 2015). However, while high test scores, report card grades, and dollar signs may fuel the increasing call for SEL, educators and researchers in this field should not lose focus of the ultimate benefactor: the student himself or herself. Research has illustrated the inherent proclivity for gifted students to develop the utmost in emotional and moral intelligence and these affective skills are also championed as those most desired by modern corporations and organizations—with emotional intelligence theorist Daniel Goleman (2006) ranking them higher than academic aptitude and intellectual ability.

Perhaps it is the mere conception of giftedness that should evolve so that the natural relationship between cognitive and affective development is represented in how we define giftedness as well as support its potential development. In their examination of the current state of gifted education, Matthews and Dai (2014) asserted that the field of gifted education itself is “pioneering investigations of optimal human development and provides a vehicle for increasing social equity” (p. 335). The authors claimed that gifted students could best be served through individualized programs that consider both academic and affective development, which is the purpose behind the creation of the framework presented here. This leads to the ultimate question: what is “optimal human development”—not only for gifted learners, but for any individual? Any type of ceiling that implies completion of development or limitation of continued growth is inherently inequitable, particularly for a population whose innate talent and disposition for developing the ultimate tiers of SEL are at levels proven higher than the general population. Therefore, a new definition of giftedness is offered here, one that takes into consideration not only the balanced development of intellectual and affective development based on individual context but also the impact one would expect from a person functioning with significant levels of emotional intelligence, thus implying impact well beyond the individual him or herself:

To be gifted is to exhibit a natural ability to think critically in order to solve problems within one’s own context, to do so with vigor and passion for the sake of learning and personal growth, and to use this newfound aptitude to enhance one’s own life as well as uphold society in general—with no limits or boundaries—by exhibiting qualities of personal leadership, empathy, respect, and an appreciation for both humanity and the world that we share. (Cavilla, 2016)

The growth-minded connotation of this definition honors the exigent need for educators to help gifted students reach beyond what they think is possible and to continually refine their approach to be the best they can be, not only for themselves but for the sake of society and humanity. To have the ultimate impact on the world we share, as well as enjoy the personal reverie of feeling fully accomplished in one’s skin, we must remove the limits and obliterate the artificial ceilings placed on our most able learners. There is no reaching one’s full potential. There is only the redefinition of what that potential may be for any given period in our lives and then having the combined cognitive and affective skills required to strive even harder, to reach even higher, and to impact the world in ways that may have only lied in obscurity until we gained the wisdom and competence needed to realize our true and ever evolving capacity.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alpren

(1974) Curriculum significance of the affective domain. Theory Into Practice 13(1): 46–53.

Bate

Clark

Riley

(2012) Gifted kids curriculum: What do the students say? Kairaranga 13(2): 23–28. Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?%20id=EJ994982 (accessed 2 June 2015).

Belfield

Bowden

Klapp

. (2015) The Economic Value of Social and Emotional Learning. New York: Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education.

Buscaglia

(1978) Affective education: a means to a beginning. School Psychology Review. Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?520id=EJ191626 (accessed 29 June 2015).

Cavilla

(2015) Observation and analysis of three gifted underachievers in an underserved, urban high school setting. Gifted Education International 33(1): 62–75.

Cavilla

(2016) Taxonomy of affective curriculum for gifted learners. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.

Duckworth

Peterson

Matthews

. (2007) Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(6): 1087–1101.

Durlak

Weissberg

Dymnicki

. (2011) The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development 82(1): 405–432.

Folsom

(2005) Exploring a new pedagogy: teaching for intellectual and emotional learning (TIEL). Issues in Teacher Education 14(2): 75–94. Available at: http://caddogap.com/periodicals.shtml (accessed 27 June 2015).

10.

Gallagher

Smith

Merrotsy

(2011) Teachers’ perceptions of the socioemotional development of intellectually gifted primary aged students and their attitudes towards ability grouping and acceleration. Gifted and Talented International 26(1): 11–24. Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?%20id=EJ959387 (accessed 27 June 2015).

11.

Goleman

(2006) Emotional Intelligence. New York: Random House LLC.

12.

Greenberg

Weissberg

O’Brien

. (2003) Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist 58(6–7): 466–474.

13.

Hägglund

Samuelsson

(2009) Early childhood education and learning for sustainable development and citizenship. International Journal of Early Childhood 41(2): 49–63.

14.

Hebert

(Anderson C 2007 Adequate yearly progress (AYP) at your library media center) Hebert (2010) Lessons learned from my students: the impact of SEM teaching and learning on affective development. Gifted Education International 26: 271–284.

15.

Hollingworth

(1937) Bright students take care of themselves. The North American Review 243(2): 261–273. Available at: https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/25114873 (accessed 27 June 2015).

16.

Johnson

(2000) Affective component in the education of the gifted. Gifted Child Today 23(4): 36–41.

17.

Kanevsky

Keighley

(2003) To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review 26: 20–28.

18.

Kaufman

(2013) Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined. New York: Basic Books.

19.

Landis

Reschly

(2013) Reexamining gifted underachievement and dropout through the lens of student engagement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 36: 220–249.

20.

Lee

Olszewski-Kubilius

(2006) The emotional intelligence, moral judgment, and leadership of academically gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 30(1): 29–67.

21.

Matthews

Dai

(2014) Gifted education: changing conceptions, emphases and practice. International Studies in Sociology of Education 24(4): 335–353.

22.

Mayer

Perkins

Caruso

. (2001) Emotional intelligence and giftedness. Roeper Review 23(3): 131–137.

23.

McCoach

Siegle

(2003) Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly 47: 144–154.

24.

National Association for Gifted Children (n.d.). Definitions of giftedness. Available at: https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/definitions-giftedness (accessed 10 October 2015).

25.

Neumeister

(2007) Perfectionism in gifted students: an overview of current research. Gifted Education International 23(3): 254–263.

26.

Payton

Weissberg

Durlak

. (2008) The Positive Impact of Social and Emotional Learning for Kindergarten to Eighth-grade Students: Findings From Three Scientific Reviews: Technical Report. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.

27.

Peterson

Lorimer

(2011) Student response to a small-group affective curriculum in a school for gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly 55: 167–180.

28.

Peterson

Lorimer

(2012) Small-group affective curriculum for gifted students: a longitudinal study of teacher-facilitators. Roeper Review 34: 158–169.

29.

Pfeiffer

Stocking

(2000) Vulnerabilities of academically gifted students. Special Services in the Schools 16(1–2): 83–93.

30.

Reis

McCoach

(2000) The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly 44: 152–170.

31.

Rinn

Plucker

Stocking

(2010) Fostering gifted students’ affective development: a look at the impact of academic self-concep t. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus 6: 1–13. Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?%20id=EJ907033 (accessed 1 October 2014).

32.

Ryan

Deci

(2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55(1): 68–78.

33.

Silverman

(1997) The construct of asynchronous development. Peabody Journal of Education 72(3-4): 36–58.

34.

Sternberg

(2012) Giftedness and ethics. Gifted Education International 28(3): 241–251.

35.

Terman

Oden

(1947) The Gifted Child Grows up: Twenty-Five Years’ Follow-up of a Superior Group, Vol. 4. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

36.

Tirri

(2010) Combining excellence and ethics: implications for moral education for the gifted. Roeper Review 33(1): 59–64.

37.

Tirri

Kuusisto

(2013) How Finland serves gifted and talented pupils. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 36(1): 84–96.

38.

VanTassel-Baska

Feng

Swanson

. (2009) Academic and affective profiles of low-income, minority, and twice-exceptional gifted learners: the role of gifted program membership in enhancing self. Journal of Advanced Academics 20: 702–739. Available at: http://journals.prufrock.com/IJP/c.abs/journal-of-advanced-academics/volume20/issue4/article976 (accessed 12 September 2014).

39.

Vare

(1979) Moral education for the gifted: a confluent model. Gifted Child Quarterly 23(3): 487–499.

40.

Wang

(2010) A case study of an affective education course in Taiwan. Educational Technology Research and Development 58(5): 613–628.

41.

Yuen

Fong

(2012) Connectedness and life skills development for all children. High Ability Studies 23(1): 119–121.

42.

Zins

Bloodworth

Weissberg

. (2007) The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 17(2-3): 191–210.