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

What recent research has been conducted about gifte d and talented students and their learning experiences in school? As we complete the first decade of the new century we are entering a time when much attention is focused on r emediation and test preparation; it only seems appropriate to reflect upon what has been lea r ed about gifted education during the last few decades and consider the compelling evidence th at may or may not support special services for gifted and talented. Consensus on which researc h themes and studies should be included in this type of examination would difficult to reach, but we have identified six important themes that are discussed in the article. This review of r esearch strongly suggests that the need for gifted education programs remains critical during the curr ent time period in American education when our nation’s creative productivity is being challen g d by European and Asian nations. What learning experiences do gifted and high-potent ial s udents currently encounter in schools? Are they challenged and engaged in their c lasses and content areas? Is differentiated instruction given to them on a regular basis? Does research suggest that certain types of provisions result in higher engagement, motivation, and creative productivity? In this article, recent research related to gifted education is summ arized across six important research themes: (a) expanded conceptions of giftedness and talent d evelopment; (b) the continued absence of challenge for gifted and high potential students; ( c) grouping patterns for gifted students; (d) the effects of differentiation, acceleration, and enric hment on both achievement and other important outcomes; (e) the use of gifted education programs nd pedagogy to serve gifted and high-ability students from diverse populations as well as high-p otential students who underachieve or have learning disabilities; and (f) longitudinal effects of gifted education programs and pedagogy. Expanded Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent Devel opment Research about gifted and talented learners points to the great diversity among this heterogeneous group of young people (Neihart, Reis, obinson, & Moon, 2001) and the fact that many do not realize their potential, in part, becau se of school factors that contribute to underachievement. In recent years, research about t he development of giftedness suggests that personality, environment, school, home, and chance factors all interact with demonstrated potential and whether or not that potential eventua lly develops into demonstrated gifts and talents (Renzulli, 2006; Sternberg & Davidson, 1986 , 2005). Difficulty exists in finding one research-based definition to describe the diversity of he gifted and talented population, and the number of overlapping definitions of giftedness tha t are proposed in educational research (Sternberg & Davidson, 2005) underlie the complexit y of defining with certainty who is and who is not gifted. In describing this diverse group of learners, many educators interchangeably use expanded definitions of giftedness and talent. This wa not always the case; for decades past, researchers and psychologists, following in the foo tsteps of Lewis Terman, equated “giftedness” with high IQ (Terman, 1925). More recently, however , definitions of giftedness or talent have become more multi-dimensional and include the inter play of culture and values on the development of talents and gifts (Sternberg & David son, 2005). Current research on the multiple perspectives of conceptions of giftedness range fro m general, broad characterizations to more targeted definitions of giftedness identified by specific actions, products, or abilities within domains (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986, 2005). This co lle tion of research studies, conducted over the last few decades, supports a broader-based conception of giftedness which combines non-intellectual qualities and intellectual potenti al, such as motivation, self-concept, and creativity (Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). Broadened Multidimensional Conceptions of Giftednes s Current research has expanded to include a multidimensional construct of giftedness that incorporates a variety of traits, skills, and abilities which are manifested in multiple ways. This belief is particularly evident in Conceptions of Giftedness (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986, 2005) of conceptions of giftedness , in which most contributors proposed conceptions of giftedness that extended beyond IQ. Rapid learning as compared to others in the population; attention control, memory efficiency, and character is ics of perception; desire to develop one’s gifts; and task commitment are all proposed as aspe ct of giftedness in and across the different models in this collection (Heller, Perleth, & Lim, 2005; Reis, 2005; Renzulli, 2005). Those labeled gifted as children and/or adults are found in every ethnic and socioeconomic group and in every culture (Sternberg, 2004). They exhibit an unlimited range of personal and learning characteristics and differ in effort, temperament, ducational and vocational attainment, productivity, creativity, risk-taking, introversion , and extraversion (Renzulli & Park, 2002; Renzulli & Reis, 2003). They have varying abilities to self-regulate and sustain the effort needed to achieve personally, academically, and in their c areers (Housand & Reis, 2009). And despite the label that this diverse population has been giv en, some do and some do not demonstrate high levels of accomplishment in their education or thei r chosen professions and work (Reis & McCoach, 2000; Renzulli & Park, 2002). In research on the characteristics of this diverse population, Frasier and Passow (199 4) synthesized traits, aptitudes, and behaviors consis tently identified by researchers as common to gifted students across cultures, noting that these ba ic elements of giftedness appear to be similar across cultures (though each is not displayed by ev ery student). These traits, aptitudes, and behaviors include: motivation, advanced interests, communication skills, memory, insight, imagination, creativity, problem solving, inquiry, reasoning, and humor. Each of these common characteristics may be manifested in different ways in different students; educators should be especially careful in attempting to identify these characteristics in students from diverse backgrounds as behavioral manifestations of the cha ra teristics may vary with context (Frasier & Passow, 1994; Tomlinson, Ford, Reis, Briggs, & Stri ckland, 2004). Joseph Renzulli was one of the earliest theorists t o propose a research-based multifaceted conception of giftedness. The theory of his three-r ing conception has prompted widespread research and gained popular appeal. It supports the idea that “gifted behaviors” result from the interaction among distinct intrapersonal characteri s ics, as is outlined in the excerpt below. Gifted behavior consists of behaviors that reflect an interaction among three basic clusters of human traits—above average ability, hig h levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity. Individuals capable of develo ping gifted behavior are those possessing or capable of developing this composite set of traits and applying them to any potentially valuable area of human performance. Per sons who manifest or are capable of developing an interaction among the three clusters require a wide variety of educational opportunities and services that are not ordinarily provided through regular instructional programs. (Renzulli & Reis, 1997, p. 8) Underrepresentation of Giftedness in Diverse Popula tions The last few decades of the 20 th century were marked by an increasing interest in d iverse gifted students who can be described as ethnic, rac ial, nd linguistic minorities, economically disadvantaged, gifted females, gifted underachiever s, and the gifted/learning disabled. Despite this interest and the recent research cited above t hat expanded conceptions of giftedness, the majority of young people identified as gifted conti nue to represent the majority culture, as economically disadvantaged and other diverse studen populations continue to be underrepresented in gifted programs (Donovan & Cros s, 2002). For example, Frasier and Passow (1994) indicate that identification and selection p rocedures may be ineffective and inappropriate for the identification of these young people. Educa tor bias, for example, may occur when preconceived ideas about what constitutes giftednes s results in teachers’ failure to recognize and nominate indicators of giftedness in culturally, li nguistically diverse (CLD) students with high potential (Ford & Grantham, 2003; Frasier & Passow, 1994). Groups that have been traditionally underrepresented in gifted programs could be better served (Ford & Grantham, 2003; Frasier & Passow, 1994) if the more expanded notions of gifte dness and more flexible forms of identification are translated from research conduct ed to state and local guidelines and regulations. Little doubt exists about the widening acceptance of a broadened conception of giftedness and talent in the research and scholarly literature (Sternberg & Davidson, 2005), however translating this research into policy and p ractice continues to remain an elusive goal. Continuing Absence of Challenge for Gifted and Tale nted Students In National Excellence: A Case for Developing America 's Talent (U.S. Department of Education, 1993), a federal report on the status of education for our nation's academically talented students, the education of talented studen s in the United States was described as a quiet crisis. The National Excellence report indicates the absence of attention paid to this population and the absence of challenge that confronts them: Despite sporadic attention over the years to the ne eds of bright students, most of them continue to spend time in school working well below their capabilities. The belief espoused in schoo