Experts have developed varying, and sometimes conflicting, conceptions of academic talent and giftedness. Classroom and school composition often are tied to these conceptions of academic talent and giftedness, and magnet and charter schools select certain students who best “fit” their particular conception of giftedness. Educators’ perceptions and attitudes regarding academic talent and giftedness thus impact what services are delivered to which students. Little is known about educators’ beliefs regarding conceptions of academic talent and giftedness. The current national study surveyed 900 public school educators, including regular classroom teachers, administrators, and gifted education specialists, regarding their definitions of academic talent and giftedness. The educators believed that all traditional and popular conceptions of academic talent and giftedness were valid, but they were less likely to support definitions involving talents in less-traditional areas. Educators accepted some of the more recently conceived, and more inclusive, conceptions of academic talent or giftedness. Such results are potentially valuable to school administrators, gifted education specialists, and regular classroom teachers who work with academically talented and gifted students, as well as to those who are concerned with the factors influencing school or classroom composition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BorlandJ. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 1–19). New York: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BrodyL. E.StanleyJ. C. (2005). Youths who reason exceptionally well mathematically and/or verbally: Using the MVT: D4 model to develop their talents. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 20–37). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
CallahanC. M. (2001). Fourth down and inches. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12, 148–156.
4.
CallahanC. M.CaldwellM. S. (1995). A practitioner's guide to evaluating programs for the gifted. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
5.
CallahanC. M.MillerE. M. (2005). A child-responsive model of giftedness. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 38–51). New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
ClarkB. (2001). Growing up gifted: Developing potential at school and in the home (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
7.
CohenR. J.SwerdlikM. E. (2005). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
8.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
9.
DealT. E.PetersonK. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
DelpitL. (2006). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.
11.
DukeD. L. (2003). The challenges of educational change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
12.
FinkA. (1995). How to analyze survey data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
FordD. Y. (2003). Two other wrongs don't make a right: Sacrificing the needs of diverse students does not solve gifted education's unresolved problems. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 283–291.
14.
FordD. Y.HarrisJ. J. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
FullanM. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
GardnerH. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
17.
GreeneM. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.
18.
HollingworthL. (1925). Special talents and defects: Their significance for education. New York: Macmillan.
19.
KárolyiC.Ramos-FordV.GardnerH. (2003). Multiple intelligences: A perspective on giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 100–112). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
20.
MarlandS. P.Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented, Volume 1. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
21.
MönksF. J.KatzkoM. W. (2005). Giftedness and gifted education. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 187–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
NietoS. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
23.
North Central Regional Education Laboratory. (2004). All students reaching the top: Strategies for closing academic achievement gaps. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
24.
OakesJ. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25.
PedhazurE. J.SchmelkinL. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26.
ReisS. M.SmallM. A. (2005). The varied and unique characteristics exhibited by diverse gifted and talented learners. In KarnesF. A.BeanS. M. (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd ed., pp. 3–35). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
27.
RenzulliJ. S. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relationship to the development of social capital. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 75–87). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
28.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1997). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
29.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (2003). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: Developing creative and productive giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 184–203). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
30.
Sapon-ShevinM. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany: State University of New York Press.
31.
SchrothS. T. (2007). Levels of service. In CallahanC. M.PluckerJ. A. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 281–294). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
32.
SchrothS. T.HelferJ. A. (2008). Urban school districts' enrichment programs: Who should be served?Journal of Urban Education, 5, 7–17.
33.
StanleyJ. C. (1980). On educating the gifted. Educational Researcher, 9(3), 8–12.
34.
StanleyJ. C.BenbowC. P. (1982). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact?Science, 210, 1262–1264.
35.
SternbergR. J. (2002). Beyond g: The theory of successful intelligence. In SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L. (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? (pp. 447–479). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36.
SternbergR. J. (2003). Giftedness according to the theory of successful intelligence. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 88–99). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
37.
SternbergR. J. (2005). The WICS model of giftedness. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 327–342). New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
SternbergR. S.ForsytheG. B.HedlundJ.HorvathJ. A.WagnerR. K.WilliamsW. M., et al. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
39.
SternbergR. S.GrigorenkoE. L. (2000). Teaching for successful intelligence: To increase student learning and achievement. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight Professional Development.
40.
TermanL. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. I. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
41.
TomlinsonC. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
42.
TomlinsonC. A.BrimijoinK.NarvaezL. (2008). The differentiated school: Making revolutionary changes in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
43.
TomlinsonC. A.GouldH.SchrothS. T.JarvisJ. (2006). Multiple case studies of teachers and classrooms successful in supporting the academic needs of high-potential low-income students of color (Research Monograph No. 06220). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
44.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrownE. F. (2005). An analysis of gifted education curricular models. In KarnesF. A.BeanS. M. (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd ed., pp. 75–105). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
