research study about gifted and talented students

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Children (Basel)

Analysing Educational Interventions with Gifted Students. Systematic Review

Inmaculada garcía-martínez.

1 Department of Didactics and School Organization, University of Granada, Campus de Cartuja s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain

Rafaela Gutiérrez Cáceres

2 Department of Education, University of Almería, Carratera Sacramento s/n, 04160 Almería, Spain; se.lau@serecacr

Antonio Luque de la Rosa

Samuel p. león.

3 Department of Pedagogy, University of Jaén, Campus Las Lagunillas s/n, 23071 Jaén, Spain; se.neaju@arraps

Associated Data

The information is available on request to the corresponding author with justifiable reason.

(1) Background: Educational attention to gifted students has not been a well-established line of research due to the multiple conceptions about their characterisation. While educational attention has tended to respond to students who present learning difficulties due to their limitations, it has been observed that gifted students may also fail in their studies. The purpose of this study is to examine educational interventions carried out with this population worldwide; (2) Methods: The methodological design is a systematic review, following the PRISMA guidelines, in the Scopus and WOS databases on educational interventions and gifted students; (3) Results: The papers were studied through a qualitative content analysis based on a population of 557 articles, with a final sample of 14, finding a great variety of didactic strategies and models oriented to meet the needs of this group. In relation to the quality of the studies, the lack of pre-post methodological designs focused on performance stands out; (4) Conclusions: Educational research with gifted population demands more interventions personalised to the specific characteristics of the students. In addition, there is a need for further research with quasi-experimental designs with this population to identify quality, not generalised, interventions to meet these needs and replace them with individualised adaptations regarding the needs and interests of these students in order to increase their motivation and reduce failure.

1. Introduction

Attention to diversity is nowadays one of the challenges to be faced by any education professional. Traditionally, the concept “attention to diversity” has merely focused on people with disabilities [ 1 ]. However, throughout the years, attention to diversity has been extended to other groups of students with specific educational support needs, including those with high intellectual abilities. In this way, education systems in the 21st century are attempting to provide a successful educational response to those who need a “readjustment” of the teaching performance. This would undoubtedly enable all people to reach their full potential. Within this group of students with specific educational support needs, the group of people with high abilities or giftedness have been relegated to not being seen as a priority. This response may sometimes be inexistent. Furthermore, it frequently seems to be inadequately adapted to the learning needs of these students [ 2 ]. Such intervention is also necessary to ensure in all cases the best possible development of each student’s abilities.

Different research approaches have thus focused on the study of giftedness in recent years. Nevertheless, no widely accepted definition for this concept has been found [ 3 ]. Generally speaking, pupils who have high cognitive abilities to achieve high performance in school are classified as high ability. This association corresponds to the traditional approach to giftedness and it is based on cognitive ability as the sole factor. In contrast, this association has now been broadened to be considered as a multidimensional construct which includes several characteristics of a person, such as high general cognitive ability, academic achievement, creativity or motivation. This finding has throughout time led to a shift from a traditional approach to one which considers other factors. As a consequence, different characteristic terms within this group now present a tendency to coexist. More specifically, these terms are High Ability, Gifted, Talented, Highly Able, Specially Able, Gifted, or Highly Capable [ 2 ]. One of the most widely accepted definitions was the one established in the Marland Report, referring to students with a high level of performance in any of the following abilities or aptitudes, alone or in combination: (1) intellectual ability, (2) specific academic aptitude, (3) creative or productive thinking, (4) leadership ability, (5) visual aptitude and performance in art, and (6) psycho-motor ability [ 4 ]. But certainly the most generally accepted definition has been provided by Renzulli [ 5 , 6 ], who considers gifted student to be those who possess three sets of characteristics with an equal emphasis on each of them: above-average intellectual ability; a high level of dedication to tasks; high levels of creativity.

On the other hand, there are different models for analysing giftedness and the identification of its diagnostic factors [ 3 , 7 , 8 ]. However, there are common characteristics in all of them which have never been considered, primarily those associated with intellectual competence [ 9 ]. Thus, a great variety of explanatory models focus on the cognitive component as a determining factor for diagnosis [ 3 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. Other models focus on the socio-cultural component, i.e., the family and social context in which the individual develops [ 13 , 14 , 15 ], among other models.

Despite the discrepancies between the approaches of these theoretical models, they all agree in understanding giftedness as a multidimensional construct. Concerning this, it is important to focus on the diversity of areas (cognitive, social and emotional) in order to make an adequate diagnosis and establish measures for action [ 2 , 5 ]. In addition, according to Tourón et al. [ 16 ], the crucial point in the case of this type of student is not to determine a precise diagnosis of giftedness and all its components—only from an interdisciplinary approach is it possible to promote the student’s full development, but to have the necessary human and material resources available at an educational level to provide an appropriate response which promotes both their maximum academic and social development. Given the existence of an associated neurological and socioemotional basis, this may have an impact on the self-esteem and motivation of these students as well as on their self-perception, academic performance and social integration [ 2 , 6 , 7 ].

In this regard, the developmental component plays a very important role in the analysis of these students’ abilities, as the school environment and the learning process of these students tend to influence the over-performance of cognitive skills. Likewise, environmental stimulation is another factor which has a considerable impact on the achievement of these students. In any case, high ability is not equivalent to good performance. In this regard, Barbier, Donche and Verschueren [ 9 ] developed a study in which they examined the inhibitors and facilitators associated with achievement in the Achievement Orientation Model (AOM) within the teaching and learning processes with high and low- achievement students in the transition from primary to secondary school.

In this context, it is necessary to address the needs of these students by providing an appropriate educational response. According to Barrera et al. [ 17 ], regular educational schools are the most suitable place to instruct this type of student, to avoid segregation or parallel systems, applying strategies which greatly promote the abilities of people with high abilities by adapting those used for each student [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ].

According to Crisol et al. [ 23 ], these strategies can focus on aspects such as:

• - The quantity of learning and teaching tasks.
• - The most demanding expectations in terms of quality.
• - The teaching style and its guiding and leadership role.
• - Promotion of cooperation and responsibility.
• - Promotion of social values and behaviour.

As a result, nowadays there is a tendency for different educational administrations to promote the improvement of educational attention in this group of students [ 3 ], thus enacting laws whose main aim is to establish different measures and strategies for attention to diversity according to specific needs. However, it is a reality that in educational schools and concerning teachers, there is a lack of training and resources required to promote the design and development of measures and strategies for educational support. However, curricular adaptation methods such as flexibility of the compulsory schooling period, individualised or small-groups educational attention during the school day when required or the development of enrichment programmes and curricular adaptations are usually promoted to this type of students [ 24 , 25 , 26 ].

The systematic review of Bailey et al. [ 27 ] on interventions aimed at improving the performance of gifted and talented students reported the tendency to use extracurricular measures with gifted and talented students, while arguing for the importance of combined measures. These students then receive a response tailored to their needs. Similarly, a recent meta-analysis [ 28 ] on the effect of low-achievement interventions in gifted students found that such programmes do not significantly improve the performance of gifted students, although they are more effective compared to the general population. In view of the above and given the importance of providing information and training to the teachers involved in order to develop a more personalised education for high-ability students, the present research aims to find out about the educational interventions carried out worldwide with gifted students, trying to delve into the curricular adaptations which are carried out and the students’ perception of these adjustments. In this regard, the research questions this review study aims to answer are the following:

- What kind of educational interventions are being developed with con high abilities/gifted students?

• - What perceptions do high abilities/gifted students have about educational measures adopted by schools?
• - What degree of methodological quality shows the evidence on intervention research for high abilities/gifted students?

2. Materials and Methods

The selected method was a systematic review in the Scopus and WOS databases, in which data were examined in order to obtain a comprehensive overview of the available information regarding a concrete issue. These databases were chosen because of its prestige and worldwide recognition, as well as the fact that they contain a large part of the research within the field of education [ 29 ]. After collecting some relevant papers, researchers analyzed them and compared the evidence these provided with similar literature [ 30 ].

An analysis of the studies finally included was conducted from a twofold perspective. On the one hand, descriptive information about the studies and their findings (author, objective, design, participants and intervention was extracted; on the other hand, the quality of the included studies using an adaptation of the quality scale developed by Ferrero et al. [ 31 ] was analyzed, for application in interventions based on Project-Based Learning [ 32 ]. This scale includes items which analyze methodological aspects related to the quality of educational interventions such as randomisation, experimental control or the measurement of the validity and reliability for the variables used. In the scale, each item may take three values: positive (the quality criterion is met), negative (the quality criterion is not met) and unknown (no available information, on the criterion).

2.1. Search Procedures

The present systematic review follows the PRISMA recommendations [ 33 ] (for further details of the PRISMA process see Supplementary Table S1 ). This research was conducted in the Scopus and WOS databases. The first author conducted a combined search of the Web of Science, and Scopus databases on 13 April 2021 conducted an electronic search entering the terms (educational and intervention) and (high and capacities) or (high and abilities) or (gift) or (exceptional and ability) or (exceptionally and able) and (students or children) into the topic field. The initial search result was limited to (a) only articles (b) written in English, (c) in the time period 2011–2021 and (d) with categories restricted to “education/educational research”. At this initial stage, the search yielded 691 articles. After removing duplicates, the initial search yielded 557 articles. The search is not registered.

In a first screening stage, the first author analysed the title and abstract of the 557 papers resulting from the first search by applying the inclusion criteria c1–c4 explained below. This first screening yielded 34 papers included for the next stage. The first and third authors independently did the full reading of these 34 papers to verify their inclusion according to the established criteria. The initial inter-rater agreement when cross-checking the results of both authors after the full reading was 98.31%. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus between the two researchers until 100% agreement was reached. As a result of this phase, 14 papers were finally included in this systematic review ( Table 1 ). Figure 1 represents the literature search process with a PRISMA flowchart.

PRISMA flowchart.

Analysis of selected studies [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ].

Firstly, it was agreed upon to focus only on articles, as it was thought that these scientific papers would contain more synthetic and detailed research. It was also considered to include only articles in English, as this is the most widely scientifically accepted language. Similarly, it was considered appropriate to reduce the time range to the last 10 years to identify educational interventions with highly able/gifted students being current and relevant. Furthermore, given the fact that the focus was on education, the main aim was to identify educational interventions within the set of interventions performed on these groups of students. As a consequence it was considered necessary to restrict the search to the areas of Educational Research.

2.2. Selection Criteria

In order to identify educational interventions which were being performed with high capacity/high abilities/gifted students and to know how these perceived those implemented at their schools, it was necessary to establish some inclusion criteria to identify the studies. These criteria were (c1) Empirical studies which develop an educational intervention and whose objective sample were high capacity/high abilities or gifted students; (c2) at any educational stage; (c3) peer review articles and (c4) articles written in English. Criteria 1 was crucial, as its aim was to identify studies in which educational interventions were described and whose sample were high-capacity/high abilities or gifted students. On the other hand, studies whose samples were based on teachers, other professionals or parents were discarded. In order to obtain a general overview on the kind of measures and interventions to be performed by educational institutions, it was agreed upon to include some results from research carried out at any educational level: infant education, primary education, secondary education and university. Scientific rigour was added to this study by including only peer review articles, thus excluding books, book chapters, communications and thesis. At the same time, the search for reviews was focused on works whose full text was written in English, as it is the most used language for scientific purposes.

3.1. Identification of the Selected Publications

The systematic review found 14 articles about interventions with gifted students or people with high abilities/high capacities/exceptionally able/exceptional ability. The main highlights of the manuscripts were extracted in Table 1 , noting (1) author/s; (2) year of publication; (3) purpose; (4) participants; and (5) intervention.

3.2. Description of the Articles Included

The 14 studies included in the systematic review are very diverse. First, the research conducted by Dare, et al. [ 34 ] focuses on the perceptions and beliefs of high-ability students and students enrolled in inclusive classrooms about acceleration in inclusive school settings, through a group concept mapping. To do so, students had to rate the ideas generated by researchers about acceleration. Results revealed that there is some concern about the risk of exclusion of accelerated learners, despite the fact that this strategy is adapted to the educational needs of highly capable students. Similar findings were previously shown in another study by Dare and Nowicki [ 35 ], which collected the experience of students who had experienced acceleration in inclusive schools, providing their perceptions and attitudes towards this measure. Results indicated that the majority were in favour of this measure, since it suited their cognitive level, challenged them and prevented them from becoming unmotivated. Despite this positive assessment, the importance of the consolidation of an inclusive social climate, in which they are provided with opportunities and support for this adaptation, was indicated. Similarly, research performed by Dare, et al. [ 36 ] also included the students’ opinion and own experience with 26 high-ability students participating in the study, of whom 19 had accelerated. The results showed strong agreement with this measure, as it provided a better learning environment for those progressing from one year to the next when challenging activities depending on their abilities were performed. The emotional state of the student was identified as another important issue to consider prior to this measure, noting that it is essential that the student is motivated to change course in order to maintain his or her socio-emotional well-being. Another issue to be examined is the student’s proficiency in different subjects, noting that it is possible that he/she may not be outstanding in all subjects, but in any case, acceleration should be done in all subjects, with a view to challenging his/her cognitive ability. Peer group, context and support and social conditions were pointed out as other factors to consider before initiating this measure.

Other studies such as the one by Ülger et al. [ 37 ] focused on interventions with gifted students in science. Specifically, they developed an intervention based on 3 modules to examine the abilities of gifted students and found positive effects for them, as this level matches their actual educational needs and potential. Another of the included studies based on an enrichment programme is the one developed by García-Perales and Almeida [ 38 ], in which the use of technology played a critical role. Among their findings, they found that the 3-week programme based on the implementation of specific educational responses improves children’s adaptation levels and, in some cases, their school performance. In addition, this study raises the question of earlier diagnosis of students with high abilities in order to design educational responses tailored to their needs.

Within the enrichment programme approach, the research conducted by Martín-Lobo et al. [ 39 ] may also be found. This focused on an enrichment intervention based on high performance and cognitive skills, creativity and cooperation programmes with 37 primary school students. This led to improvements in attention, creativity and interpersonal problem solving. Another piece of research within the scope of enrichment or extension of the basic curriculum which may be worth mentioning here is presented in the study by Robertson and Pfeiffer [ 40 ]. In the American context, this work presents a guide to the application of the RtI model to adjust curricular teaching to the needs of students. One of the potentials of this model is that it is valid for both gifted and standard students, and it contributes to reduce school failure and school segregation. Its results not only lead to improvements in performance, but also to a considerable increase in student motivation by providing cognitive challenges adapted to each student’s abilities.

The studies by Yu and Jen [ 41 ] and the one developed by Yoon et al. [ 42 ] were included within the enrichment programmes and closely linked to the STEM areas. Concerning the first one, nanotechnology concepts were introduced to 28 high ability students by using a 200-min programme divided into 40-min science sessions twice a week. To achieve this, 4th and 6th grade contents were examined and some activities were specifically designed for them. In all of these, nanotechnology were used by using the 5E instructional model. Results showed that the common curriculum and nanotechnology are perfectly compatible. Students are able to learn these concepts through appropriately-designed activities. Therefore, Yoon et al. [ 42 ] focused their study on abilities and skills of 10 gifted and talented students who wanted to become scientists by using the YSTLC programme during a week. They found that intervention improved students’ attitude, STEM knowledge and leadership skills.

The study by Golle et al. [ 43 ] was carried out in Germany. This focused on the analysis of the effect of a HCPA enrichment programme in infant education academies by using a quasi-experimental design and in which several knowledge areas were included, apart from the STEM one, so as to satisfy all needs which highly talented students may show. To achieve this, a wide range of elements were included, ranging from those common ones which appear on the curriculum to more transversal areas. More specifically, general cognitive abilities were included, specific mastery skills, specific mastery interests, self-concept and motivation, autorregulation, control and social competences. This programme incremented students’ performance only on Maths and German. However, no increase was measured on any of the other measured variables.

Related to the above, the research of Kahveci et al. [ 44 ] proposes going beyond standard enrichment programmes to implement an integrated curriculum model (IMC), this time in the field of social sciences. Under this perspective, it is observed that the combination of teaching content adapted to the cognitive abilities of students with high abilities and the modality of instruction leads to a change in the attitude and perception of students regarding the usefulness of learning in this area.

In contrast to other studies, the study by Doobay et al. [ 45 ] was conducted with 41 high-ability students and 41 students with autism. The main purpose of the study was to lay the basis for appropriate early diagnosis between these two groups, which sometimes share certain observable characteristics. In this manner, the cognitive, adaptive and psychosocial functioning of both groups was compared, finding that the high ability students without autism presented a higher processing speed, motor, adaptive and psychosocial functioning skills than the students with autism.

In contrast to most studies that focused on performance, the study by de Oliveira et al. [ 46 ] focused on an 8-week social skills training programme with 9 high-ability/gifted children, based on socialisation, communication, expression of feelings, self-management, self-advocacy and assertiveness, and collaboration. After the programme, it was found that both the high ability/gifted children and their teachers and family members noticed improvements in relation to their social behaviour patterns after the implementation of the programme. Finally, the study by Van Der Meulen et al. [ 47 ] with Dutch gifted students presents a pullout program, the “Day a Week School” with 25 highly capable students, aimed at reducing socioemotional problems, disruptive behaviour and increasing the self-concept of these students and reducing parental stress. For this purpose, on one day a week gifted students were taken out of their reference class to perform a set of activities with other high-ability students. Following the DWS programme, children showed improved school results, as well as a wide range of positive effects in different areas of social-emotional well-being.

3.3. Quality of the Articles Included

Figure 2 shows the detailed findings from the quality analysis of the 14 studies included in the review:

Quality analysis of the articles included.

Figure 3 represents the item-by-item quality summary for all studies. From the total number of possible answer alternatives that each paper could reach for each item of the scale, 11.61% reached a positive value, 57.14% a negative value and 31.25% unknown. It should be noted that very few studies answered the quality questions analysed correctly. Sometimes, the positive results come from indirect mentions suggesting fulfilment of the criteria.

Overview of the quality of the articles included.

Of all the papers analysed, none were pre-registered (item 1) or showed open data (item 16). None conducted any kind of randomised control (items 2 and 3). Notably, none of the studies used an active control group (item 11). In fact, of all the studies reviewed, only two used control group designs. Only one study (7.14%) analysed the dependent variable before the intervention (item 8). In contrast, many of the studies (64.28%) analysed the outcomes after the intervention (item 15). In general terms, it can be stated that most of the studies analysed showed a low methodological quality.

4. Discussion

In general terms, the systematic review carried out on 14 articles dealt with different educational interventions with the population with high-ability/high-capacity/gifted students. More specifically, there were two research questions to be answered by this study:

In view of the results obtained, it has been found that there are three modalities of educational interventions carried out with gifted students consistent with previous studies such as the one developed by De Corte [ 48 ]. The first one is related to the acceleration of students, considering the supremacy of the positive aspects over the negative ones. The promotion of students to higher grades ensures that the student finds a curriculum adapted to his or her cognitive ability and shares classes with peers of similar maturation to his or her own [ 36 , 38 ]. The second modality is related to keeping students in their class of reference, but implementing curricular enrichment programmes, where the content to be learned goes beyond basic curriculum. These programss have proven to be highly effective for the design of educational responses adapted to the particular needs of the high-ability group [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 ]. The third one is grouping, which consists of establishing homogeneous classes for gifted learners [ 47 ]. De Corte [ 48 ] defines pull-out programs as a system in which “high-ability students of a school spend several hours per week in a separate room where they can work under supervision on certain projects of their own choice” (p. 14).

However, based on the findings of the studies included in this review, it is necessary to avoid the application of generalized and standardized programmes to these students, as each one responds to a different profile with very particular needs, hence the importance of designing and implementing integrated curricular programmes adapted to the cognitive abilities of gifted students [ 39 , 42 ]. Another feature to be included in several of the studies within this review is the consideration of psychosocial factors, and in particular, educational and organisational resources specific to each of them as a guarantee to ensure the psycho-emotional balance of students [ 38 , 40 , 46 ].

As is the case with other studies [ 2 , 4 , 47 ], these results show that students with high intellectual abilities share the same common characteristics in terms of intelligence and creativity. However, it is a heterogeneous and diverse group to such an extent that each of them have their own characteristics, thus differentiating them from each other. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an appropriate educational response to the specific needs of each student with high abilities, through the design and implementation of specific plans based on the measures and support required.

For this purpose, it may be advisable to carry out an early identification of the characteristics and needs of high ability or gifted students [ 30 , 45 ], and in particular, as stated by Comes, Díaz, Luque and Moliner [ 4 ], it may be necessary to carry out a psycho-educational assessment process, understood as:

“a process of collection, analysis and evaluation of relevant information about the different elements involved in the teaching and learning process, in order to identify the educational needs of certain students who present or may present imbalances in their personal and/or academic development, and to base and specify decisions regarding the curricular proposal and the type of help they may need in order to progress in the development of different abilities” (p. 105).

Furthermore, as it has been previously stated in several studies [ 24 , 26 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ], in order to develop an educational response in response to the needs of each high-ability student and based on a psycho-educational assessment carried out previously, it is essential for teachers to acquire strong training in the educational care of students with high abilities, aimed at promoting educational care whose purpose is to offer students with high abilities educational opportunities to develop their potential and talents to the maximum.

- What perceptions do high-ability/gifted students have about educational measures adopted by schools?

Although the studies reviewed in this systematic review are different, a great convergence has been observed in relation to the analysis of students’ perceptions of the measures adopted by schools. The performance and assessment of students with high abilities will be positive as long as educational measures are adapted to their individual needs and presents them with a cognitive challenge. Otherwise, the likelihood of school failure will increase considerably, either because of boredom or a lack of interest, or due to insufficient psychosocial support resources [ 32 , 33 , 35 , 40 ].

These data contrast with the results found in several studies [ 39 , 42 , 53 , 54 ] that students with high abilities have a biological and neurological basis in terms of socio-emotional difficulties and, therefore, tend to show low self-esteem and self-perception, as noted in the introduction section [ 2 , 5 , 6 ].

Thus, to the extent that there is an inadequate adaptation of the teaching-learning process to the characteristics of students with high abilities, this school context, as found in other studies [ 16 , 55 , 56 ] state, puts these students at a disadvantage, and they tend to become bored, which leads to a general lack of motivation and, therefore, to failure at school.

Therefore, as stated by some authors [ 16 , 57 , 58 ], it is necessary to design and implement intervention measures appropriate to the needs of each student with high abilities or giftedness in order to favour their own perceptions and attitudes about the measures adopted in response to their particular situation, thus promoting quality education based on inclusion and attention to diversity.

In this sense, general conclusions which may be extracted from this work and concerning data previously shown, it can be confirmed that two intervention modalities exist: first of all, the acceleration concerning an academic year further than the one in which the student has officially joined [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]; secondly, curricular enrichment programmes [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. However, these latter are more disperse and not always fulfill students’ expectations. Nevertheless, concerning the results obtained, if appropriate designs are used, they may better adjust to students’ interests, improve their performance as well as other ways of learning such as social skills, attitude and motivation towards academic purposes or leadership.

This conclusion is undoubtedly linked to the other general conclusion, as it has been detected that students’ perception is not always satisfactory concerning educational attention received in their corresponding schools. This may directly influence their self-esteem levels, as well as learning motivation and performance [ 34 , 35 ].

Due to the fact that this work has been limited to analyzing intervention modalities and students’ perceptions, it would be convenient to advance in further studies when analyzing systems to determine the needs of highly talented students [ 4 ]. As was mentioned in the introduction, it can be confirmed that their diagnosis is quite complex to establish attention to diversity measures [ 1 , 14 , 15 ] and multidimension of learning potential together with social, family or emotional factors [ 3 , 16 ]. This reality makes it necessary to perform further studies on teacher training and cross-professional collaborative work so as to appropriately fulfill these students’ needs.

- What degree of the methodological quality shows the evidence on intervention research for high abilities/gifted students?

The present systematic review has found low quality in relation to interventions delivered to high ability/gifted students. These findings are consistent with the study by Steenbergen-Hu et al. [ 28 ] in which they report the low quality of underachievement interventions with gifted students. Previous studies where the quality of educational interventions has been analysed have called for caution in making interpretations based on studies with low methodological quality [ 32 ]. In particular, this study states “if all of these results had been collated in a quantitative meta-analysis without a proper analysis of their quality, most likely the conclusions would have been deceivingly positive” [ 32 ]. Based on this approach, we believe that generalising the effects found in the included papers could lead to misleading interpretations. Therefore, the results found in this study encourage more research to analyse the effect of educational interventions with higher quality and methodological rigour among this population of pupils. In this regard, studies with pre-post design with an active control group would be the best methodological option when analysing an intervention with the best methodological control. On the other hand, this study has a number of limitations which need to be considered. Firstly, there are those related to the methodological design. The systematic review based on the combination of key words through the use of booleans may limit the search previously performed. Another limitation related to the method is the use of the WOS and Scopus databases, thus leaving aside the grey literature. Nevertheless, this study has a number of strengths that should be considered. This research provides an overview of the educational interventions that have been developed with people with high abilities in the last decade at different educational stages. In this regard, this document may be of great use both for experts within the field of special education and for teachers who have students with these characteristics and need to have a framework of reference to adjust their teaching according to the needs and interests of the students. In view of the results obtained, it is intended that further research should be conducted with experimental and longitudinal designs concerning students with high abilities in order to improve their teaching and learning processes.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/children8050365/s1 , Table S1 PRISMA 2020 Checklist.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.G.-M. and R.G.C.; Methodology, I.G.-M., A.L.d.l.R. and S.P.L.; software, S.P.L.; formal analysis, A.L.d.l.R.; writing—original draft preparation, I.G.-M., R.G.C. and S.P.L.; writing—review and editing, I.G.-M., A.L.d.l.R. and R.G.C.; supervision, I.G.-M., S.P.L. and A.L.d.l.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The Hechinger Report

Covering Innovation & Inequality in Education

PROOF POINTS: What research tells us about gifted education

Share this:

• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

The Hechinger Report is a national nonprofit newsroom that reports on one topic: education. Sign up for our  weekly newsletters  to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox. Consider supporting our stories and becoming  a member  today.

Get important education news and analysis delivered straight to your inbox

• Weekly Update
• Future of Learning
• Higher Education
• Early Childhood
• Proof Points

After years of discussion, New York City announced in October 2021 that it is overhauling gifted and talented programs, eliminating the testing of thousands of 4-year-olds and the city’s separate education system of schools and classrooms for students who score high on this one test.  I wanted to know what the research evidence says about the model that New York is discarding and how education researchers would remake gifted and talented programs.

In New York City, roughly 2,500 kindergarteners a year are put into separate gifted and talented classrooms. That’s less than 4 percent of the city’s public school population and below the national average where almost 7 percent of students are tapped for gifted and talented programs. Gifted and talented programs are especially popular in the South. Maryland has the highest percentage of gifted students at 16 percent. By contrast, in Massachusetts, where students consistently post the highest test scores in the nation, only one half of one percent of students — 0.5 percent — are labeled “gifted” and given extra services.

Regardless of the number of students, the racial and ethnic composition of the students in gifted and talented programs is often askew. In New York City, the difference between gifted and general education is especially stark. White and Asian parents who have the resources and inclination to prepare their 4-year-olds to excel on standardized tests snag more than three quarters of the coveted seats, although these two groups account for less than a third of all students. Meanwhile, Black and Hispanic students make up more than 65 percent of the public school system but win only 16 percent of the gifted seats.

More on GIFTED EDUCATION

Bright black students taught by black teachers are more likely to get into gifted-and-talented classrooms, gifted classes may not help talented students move ahead faster, proof points: gifted programs provide little to no academic boost, new study says, is there a trade-off between racial diversity and academic excellence in gifted classrooms, brainy black and hispanic students might benefit most from ‘honors’ classrooms.

Nationally, more than 13 percent of all Asian students are enrolled in gifted programs compared with just 4 percent of Black students, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics. Among whites, 8 percent get tapped for gifted classrooms. Among Hispanic students, it’s 5 percent. That mirrors long-standing achievement differences on standardized tests but researchers have also found that gifted Black students are often overlooked , especially by white teachers.

A 2021 study in Ohio found that high-achieving students who score among the top 20 percent on third-grade tests were much less likely to be identified as gifted and stay high achieving if they are Black or low-income students. As they grew up, these Black and low-income high achievers were less likely to go to college.  

“If we want to improve the racial or socioeconomic diversity of our colleges and beyond, these are the kids who have the best shot at doing so, and yet our schools are letting them down,” said Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education think tank, which published the Ohio study.

Researchers have been studying ways to diversify the ranks of gifted-and-talented programs. Testing all students rather than relying on teacher recommendations and parent initiative has helped districts identify more students of color who qualify. In New York City, the system relied on parent initiative and many Black and Hispanic parents didn’t register their 4-year-olds to take the test. 

Scholars applaud New York City’s plan to stop testing 4-year-olds and wait until later in elementary school to identify students. 

“As a general rule, test scores become more accurate as students age with second- or third-grade being when they tend to stabilize,” said Scott Peters, an assistant professor of education at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, who studies gifted education. “It was ridiculous to ID students at age four for any kind of long-term services.”

Even with universal screening, which New York City said it is planning to do in the future, the numbers of Black and Hispanic students selected for gifted-and-talented programs can remain disappointing, researchers have found. That’s true even in school districts, such as Raleigh, North Carolina, that also review student work , not just test scores, when deciding who is gifted. 

One popular idea is to cream the top from each school, creating a threshold for giftedness that varies from neighborhood to neighborhood. While that qualifies many more students of color from low-income schools, they would still be underrepresented in gifted classrooms, researchers have calculated. In a simulation across 10 states , Black students would still account for only 8 to 10 percent of the gifted classroom seats, even though they make up 14 percent of the student population. Hispanics would have 8 to 9 percent of the seats while they make up 13 percent of the population.

Racial achievement gaps are real in our society and it isn’t easy to overcome them simply by changing test-score thresholds or formulas for who gets admitted.

A second, equally important line of research is whether gifted-and-talented programs are worthwhile for the students who are in them. Several studies have found that students aren’t learning any more when they receive gifted services. A 2011 study in the Southwest found that gifted-and-talented programs throughout the district generated no discernible impact on math or reading . The study did detect higher science scores but only for students who attended a particular gifted-and-talented magnet school. Another 2012 study also found that gifted instruction had no effect on achievement . Most recently, a 2021 study published in the journal of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis found that gifted programs across the nation provided little to no academic boost .

Perhaps it should be no surprise that students aren’t achieving more in gifted classrooms when most educators admit they don’t even try to teach advanced material in them. A 2019 survey of teachers in gifted programs found they primarily focused on “enrichment activities” such as creative, fun projects and critical thinking exercises and discussions, keeping children on grade-level material, rather than moving them ahead to advanced academic content. 

The research consensus, by contrast, argues for propelling high-achieving children ahead with accelerated lessons. 

“Acceleration has a larger impact on student learning than many common instructional strategies and yet schools tend to rarely use it,” said Peters of the University of Wisconsin.

While some students display talent in all subjects, it’s far more common to have talent in one domain, such as math but not reading. Scholars say advanced lessons in specific subjects might be more effective and targeted to a student’s needs. 

Some argue for the elimination of gifted-and-talented education altogether. But other researchers, including David Card, a University of California, Berkeley, economist who was awarded a Nobel Prize in economics in October 2021, have found that bright students of color especially benefit from being surrounded by high-achieving peers. He and his University of California, Santa Cruz co-author Laura Guiliano, are now studying the long-term outcomes for gifted students in Florida.

University of Wisconsin’s Peters also argues for preserving gifted education.  

“Schools love to say that they will just challenge all kids in the regular education classroom,” said Peters. “The problem is this tends to include five to seven grade levels of readiness. The result is teachers have to make hard choices on who gets to learn and there is self-report data that kids who are already at grade level don’t get attention.”

There’s still no consensus on how best to administer higher-level instruction for children who are already several grade levels above their peers. Across the country, gifted services vary widely. Sometimes, students learn in separate classrooms. Sometimes, they are pulled out for separate instruction. And sometimes, a specialist is sent into a classroom to work with advanced students in small groups.

As New York City fleshes out the details of its future gifted-and-talented program, the research evidence isn’t yet clear on which model is most effective.

This story about  gifted and talented programs was written by Jill Barshay and produced by  The Hechinger Report , a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the  Hechinger newsletter .

Related articles

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn't mean it's free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.

Jill Barshay SENIOR REPORTER

(212)... More by Jill Barshay

Letters to the Editor

At The Hechinger Report, we publish thoughtful letters from readers that contribute to the ongoing discussion about the education topics we cover. Please read our guidelines for more information. We will not consider letters that do not contain a full name and valid email address. You may submit news tips or ideas here without a full name, but not letters.

By submitting your name, you grant us permission to publish it with your letter. We will never publish your email address. You must fill out all fields to submit a letter.

Dear Editor,

Your story, Proof Points: What Research Tells Us about Gifted Education, on the equality and effectiveness of Gifted Education was interesting, but I feel it missed an important point. I have been teaching gifted education classes as well as school-wide enrichment in Oklahoma for nearly 30 years. In my experience, the most effective side of gifted education is to give bright students, no matter their background, an opportunity to use the skills they possess in the school setting. Why is this so important? Because I have see scores of gifted students drop out of school because of lack of motivation, and the idea that they can “do something” more effectively if they strike out on their own like Bill Gates and change the world. MOST of these students, however, are destined to seek out other activities to fill their racing minds. This is where we find the computer hackers, drug dealers and other “leaders” who take their gifts and skills in an extremely negative direction. Motivating gifted kids to see the importance of education, and more importantly the application of education, keeps them in school and on track. This has to start young and it has to include critical thinking, problem solving, teamwork, innovation, entrepreneurship, and all of the other skills that will make school lessons applicable and interesting. IF gifted students learn what they can do with the knowledge they are acquiring in the regular classroom, they will always want more.

Yet again, Hechinger Report slams gifted education without interviewing the families of children who need services, without reaching out to the many organizations who provide social and educational services, and asking about the unique needs of these students. The focus is always on the most restrictive and biased programs and strong programs that have excellent access are not mentioned.

LAUSD is the second largest district in the nation. It tests every second grade student. It tests at parent and teacher request. Students can also access services by high achievement on state tests and to the arts via portfolio. It provides programs for 2E children. It provides programs for profoundly gifted students. Students can access services at their home school or attend specialized magnet programs. Students new to the district are offered testing. There are specialized magnets in everything from math, science, and humanities to performing arts and the zoo open to all students. There are three accessible math pathways.

Please start writing stories with deep research instead of reflexive attacks.

Students attending Head Start programs do well but lose steam in grades 1-3 when homework is given (overall demographics). Gifted students in heterogeneous classrooms become bored readily 7& are unable t get stimulation in afterschool activities, a great recipe for gangs & criminal activity. W gifted will succeed despite it all, but the USA will lose.

Our daughter was selected for the G and T program in her first week in school. She participated through middle school, then opted out. She did not think the program did anything for her. We, her parents, were deceived by the implication that such a program would provide a more substantial education. It did not.

I’ll tell you a secret about the most widely used intelligence tests for identifying gifted students – they measure what a student knows rather than how well a student can think. For example, they demand knowledge of words, that is not intelligence, it is achievement. The effect is that students of color who have not had high quality educational experiences are at disadvantage and get lower scores and therefore do not score high enough to be selected. It is that simple. To find ALL gifted students the intelligence tests must measure thinking not knowing. This can be achieved using tests that have been explicitly designed to measure thinking in a way that is not confounded by knowing.

Dear Editorial Team, Thank you Jill Barshay for bringing the topic of gifted education to light and highlighting some of the criticisms of current identification as well as programming in gifted education. I would like to ask a few questions of the critics: 1) If school boards refuse subject area acceleration as an option for those in need (until high school) and will only define gifted education as enrichment activities, why would they use academic growth as a criteria for judging a program that is limited/required to provide only depth? 2) Might these enrichment programs provide growth or keep alive something other than academic knowledge, something like curiosity and wonder? 3) Might the lessons in creative and inventive thinking make a difference years later when they go out into the world?

When I asked myself those questions after 20 years of developing and implementing an enrichment program for ‘producers of ideas’ while they remained most of the time in classrooms where they learned to be ‘consumers of ideas’*, we sent out an alumni survey that was designed to measure their perceptions based on the program goals we had set forth. With an excellent response, a statistically significant finding stated early exposure to creative thinking was the most influential and pivotal contribution to their entire education. True stories that support the statistics: One young man straight out of college was hired in a large tech company and within the first 6 months obtained his first patent. His proud mother was excited to share the news with the extended family at Thanksgiving, but he would not let her because he said he did no more than exactly what he had done in 4th grade -so that was nothing to brag about! She came into school the next day to tell me.

Another event – Young lady graduated from college with a business degree, was hired as an assistant to the CEO of a company who set up a meeting with all his regional directors and she was there taking notes. The CEO asked everyone to go around the table and describe the company as a particular make of a car. Everyone picked a car stating accolades in common. When my former student was asked, surprised to be included, she said from what she has learned thus far, she saw the company not as a car but as a garage for all of the expensive cars mentioned. Her promotion was quite significant, if memory serves me right it was VP of the company. Again, a proud dad/colleague came to tell me of this amazing application of the concrete realization of our program’s purpose.

There some good resources that provide deep thought on the subject – Abe Tannebaum’s 1983 book “Gifted Children” where the concept of educating ‘consumers’ and (for those with interest and capability) ‘producers’ of ideas is just one of many contributions to the research by a highly respected. The book on programming I find to be the most comprehensive includes the work of many scholars “Best practices in gifted education” edited by Bruce Shore and colleagues. Joyce Van Tassel’s book on curriculum are favorites for helping teachers modify regular curriculum content. I wrote “On Human Potential: nurturing talents, cultivating expertise” to offer a means of moving past the ‘have and have not’ conversation that has been so divisive as well as help teachers recognize and become better instructional strategists for gifted education.

With all the talk of problems with gifted education that has been based on myths, misinformation and misdirection, why haven’t the critics looked at some of the success stories out there? Seeing what works might help others know what might be wrong with theirs. Let’s move forward so all children’s needs are addressed.

Most Sincerely,

Sandra Kay, EdD

Thank you, Sandra Kay. I like the concept of gifted students being “producers of ideas” rather than “consumers of ideas”. We really need to start encouraging this type of thinking in all of our students, because we really never truly know who the next “Bill Gates” will be. I’ve met some of the most talented and intellectually stimulating minds behind the walls of a jail. I think this is a testament to how schools have failed in society. The gifted mind need an outlet to flourish, and if they can’t find it in some way to be good for society they will be forced to use that energy to the detriment of society.

Thanks for publishing this information, but I found the headline misleading, in that little research is actually included and that research that is included is incomplete. More importantly, in my opinion, the author doesn’t answer the questions that were set out in the introduction. Answering those questions would have, once again, in my opinion, made a much more informative read.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Submit a letter

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Systematic review article, giftedness and gifted education: a systematic literature review.

• Department of Human and Social Sciences, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy

The present study aims to discuss the state of the art inherent in pedagogical-didactic research on the education of gifted students. To this end, a systematic review of scientific texts published between 2011 and 2021 was carried out. The present article is organized as follows: introduction to the topic; definition of the objectives, research questions, and methodological protocol; selection, evaluation, and synthesis of the abstract studies; discussion and evaluation of the results; and conclusions. Multiple tools for identifying the gifted students (for use by psychologists, pedagogists, educators, and teachers) emerge from the findings of the present study. The texts highlight numerous instructional and educational programming models for gifted students in all school grades. The main model is the SEM—(Schoolwide Enrichment Model). The present review shows a conspicuous production on gifted education, with the predominance of recently published articles (indicative of vivid interest in the topic) and of American origin. This geographic predominance, which does not cover the European and eastern parts of the world, may depend on the fact that the databases used [Scopus and Web of Science (WoS)] select results based on the use of English. This review reveals gaps and emerging trends in gifted education research, suggesting possibilities and future perspectives.

1. Introduction: Toward a pedagogy of talent: Gifted education and inclusive school

1.1. from a quantitative to a qualitative model of intelligence.

The awareness of the role of educational context in the development of potential of gifted children formally emerged in the first national report on gifted education, the Marland (1972) , in which the United States of America was recommended to take specific measures to support giftedness, emphasizing the need for customizing educational and didactic programming for these gifted students. Approximately two decades later, Recommendation 1248 ( Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe, 1994 ) was published in Europe, which reiterated the need for education, as a fundamental right of every individual, to be appropriate for all, emphasizing the importance of adopting special measures to support gifted individuals.

The first studies on giftedness were conducted in the field of psychometry and currently, the measurement of Intellectual Quotient (IQ) remains the main and the only method often used to identify gifted people ( Carman, 2013 ). In 1921, Lewis Terman expressed interest in formulating the developmental process of children with high intellectual abilities. He initiated a longitudinal study involving 1,528 children between the ages of 8 and 12 years with IQs of at least 135. His goal was to show that IQ measured at school age remained unchanged in adulthood and inevitably translated into professional success. The research continued until his final years, and subsequent follow-ups were carried on by other researchers. However, contrary to the biological determinism hypothesized by Terman, the investigation made it clear that intelligence measured at school age was not a sufficiently relevant factor to ensure success in adulthood in professional life. This study corroborates the multidimensional theories that, beyond the genetic factor, variables such as sociocultural environment and intrapersonal factors are determinants.

In fact, in recent years, the advancement of research on the topic of giftedness has shifted the focus from a view of giftedness as permanent and rigidly linked to the individual ( Galton, 1869 ; Terman, 1925 ; Witty, 1958 ) to a dynamic and multidimensional view ( Renzulli, 1978 ; Tannenbaum, 1986 ; Gagné, 1993 ; Weisberg, 2006 ; Davis et al., 2011 ) of exceptionalism influenced, at multiple levels, by contextual systems ( Bronfenbrenner, 1979 ).

1.2. Giftedness at school: legislation and needs

The turning point in Italian educational policy has recently come with MIUR Note No. 562 of 3 April 2019, which for the first time includes giftedness in an official document, formalizing the presence of gifted pupils among the Special Educational Needs (SEN). This development confirms the educational responsibility of teachers, already sanctioned by the regulation of Ministry No. 8/2013, to implement the personalization of teaching, also assessing the possibility of formalizing it in a personalized teaching plan.

Still today, this educational and didactic support for gifted students is perceived as exclusive and elitist ( Fiorucci, 2017 ) with negative impact on gifted students who, if not adequately accompanied, find it difficult to live their own specificity and experiences of demotivation, frustration, and malaise ( Pinnelli, 2017 ) that can degenerate into marginalization and psychological problems.

This elitist vision collides with the full inclusion model pursued by Italian and international policies. Emerged as early as 1978 in the Warnock Report (England), 15–20% of students at one time in their years of schooling are destined to encounter difficulties and for this reason, will need special support.

For this reason, European and international legislation directs schools to activate resources and prepare the educational context in the best possible way to support every diversity (intrinsic to each student) and develop every type of potential.

This right to full inclusion of gifted students in educational system and this commitment to universal education is enshrined in the Salamanca Statement ( UNESCO, 1994 ) which states that “curricula should be adapted to children’s needs, not vice-versa (p. 22)” 1 and, more recently, in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ( United Nations [UN], 2006 ) that emphasizes the need for an inclusive education system at all levels and aimed at the full development of human potential.

Inclusive didactics do not propose equality but guarantee equity, that is, these didactics provide everyone with the educational measures they need, also paying attention to gifted students. As Aristotle already concluded in the Fifth Book of the Nicomachean Ethics “[.] What is fair and what is equal are the same thing, and, even both are good, equal is best” (EN 1137b 10-13).

Schools must be able to respond to the needs expressed by gifted students, which, in the Delaubier Report ( Delaubier, 2002 , p. 15–16), are summarized as follows:

1. The need for identification and recognition: the gifted child must be identified early in life to avoid the risk of situations of failure and suffering later in life. He/she must be understood in his/her complexity, supported, and encouraged in the knowledge of his/her qualities and fragilities.

2. The need to take charge of the student, with consequent attention to the specific difficulties to which giftedness could lead.

3. The need for motivation resulting from the frequent risk of boredom deriving from flat, repetitive, and not very challenging teaching.

4. The consequent need for complexity in learning that brings out the divergent and analytical thinking typical of gifted students, that is, instead, mortified by traditional teaching (based on single logical and sequential units).

The need for balance: the school must compensate for the tendency to intellectual overinvestment typical in these children with social, physical, affective, and moral education.

The fulfillment of personal and educational needs is a necessary condition to guarantee the gifted pupil’s wellbeing. This scenario is often hindered by teachers’ beliefs about giftedness who as teachers, driven by the need to understand, absorb information readily available in context. However, this information is distorted and reductive and consequently impedes specific educational action toward gifted students. Among the myths, the myth of self-sufficiency ( Pinnelli, 2019 , p. 24) supposes the complete autonomy of gifted students who do not need help or adaptations to always be successful. This superficial view does not consider all the variables that influence performance (e.g., motivation, self-efficacy, control and learning strategies, and resistance to stressors) that need to be enhanced in tailor-made educational interventions.

Indeed, giftedness can be related to high achievement and positive school adjustment as well as to difficulties and underachievement. To avoid such negative outcomes and accommodate the above-mentioned needs, didactic-educational planning must be personalized and aim at the development of both learning potential and socio-emotional skills.

1.3. Systematic literature review as an orientation tool for gifted education

For these reasons, this systematic review of the literature adopts a specifically didactic and pedagogical slant, aiming to offer an orientation tool among the texts on educational methodologies and gifted education models, escorting toward an appropriate takeover of the gifted student.

The decision to limit inclusion in textbooks is motivated by the need to choose works in which the applied methodological dimension is amply argued in terms of teaching practices and learning outcomes. In particular, the argumentation on the validity of a teaching practice must be accompanied by precise and extensive indications on the aims and objectives of the teaching-learning sequence, the methodologies and tools used, the assessment of initial, mid-term, and final learning, examples of activities, qualitative observations on the performance, analysis of results, and reflection on the development of good practices. Although scientific articles based on empirical studies, through the review process, ensure quality and scientific rigor, such articles have a limited number of usable characters and pages. Therefore, the applied methodology is often summarized in a coherent and concise discourse. For these reasons, a more extensive and elaborate dissertation, full of examples, observations, and details, is more likely to be found in textbooks and not in articles with limited pages and characters.

The present review was initially conducted by operating on the main international bibliographic databases (Web of Science and Scopus). In this first analysis, the emergence of very few Italian papers highlighted the limitation of the “citation subculture,” 2 that is, a disparity between subject areas in the retrieval of bibliographic sources in databases indexed based on the quantitative citation analysis.

The underrepresentation of Italian Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) scientific literature in the mentioned databases is due to the fact that the field of educational science is characterized by qualitative evaluations and, as Sani (2012 , p. 186) states, it is still not very internationalized but this does not mean that it is not a reflection of science characterized by innovation and quality.

To overcome these limitations and include in the systematic literature review on the topic of gifted education books by national authors that may escape academic databases (but are relevant to the review), Google Books was used. 3

2. Methodology

To understand the development and state of the art on research in the field of education of gifted students, a systematic literature review was conducted, based on the guidelines outlined by Kitchenham and Charters (2007) . The process followed three main steps that were divided into several steps ( Figure 1 ). Subsequently, Bibliometrix software ( Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017 ) was used to extract and process the datasets.

Figure 1. Process of systematic literature review (adapted by Kitchenham and Charters, 2007 ).

2.1. Planning

2.1.1. defining the objectives of the review.

Based on the guidelines, the first step in conducting a systematic literature review is to define the objectives. This study reviews the existing Italian and international literature on gifted education with the aim of:

RO1: Identifying the state of the art in pedagogical and didactic research on education and talent development

RO2: Identifying possible gaps and future research perspectives on the subject.

2.1.2. Specifying research questions

To identify the primary studies and to guide the data extraction and analysis processes, the following research questions were formulated:

RQ1: What models are used by schools to identify and take care of gifted students?

RQ2: What teaching methodologies, educational practices, and school programs are dedicated to supporting and developing potential and talent?

2.1.3. Developing and evaluating the review protocol

The research method used during the systematic review process was based on the review protocol. Specifying the method adopted for the review helps to reduce the risk of unintentional errors. During the planning phase, informal and formal searches were used to identify objectives and research questions underlying the review process. The methodology is based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 4 model.

2.2. Conducting

2.2.1. searching for and selecting primary studies with specific inclusion/exclusion criteria.

To delimit the selection of studies related to the topic of the review, some keywords were identified. According to Cronin et al. (2008 , p. 41), considering alternative terms with corresponding meanings is crucial for maximizing the amount of information in a literature review. For this purpose, the search string also included synonyms used in different combinations through the Boolean operators “and” and “or,” which expand or limit the search product.

The final search string was: “giftedness” OR “gifted education” OR “plusdotati” OR (“plusdotazione” AND “Scuola”).

The search was conducted on international bibliographic databases (Scopus and Web of Science (WoS)) selected for the following criteria: international spectrum and qualitative evaluation of indexed sources (Impact Factor and h-index). The number of results was subsequently reduced using both the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In Web of Science, the query was performed in the “Topic” field (including title, abstract, and keywords) with the following criteria ( Table 1 ):

Table 1. Web of Science criteria.

1. Categories: Education Educational Research, Education Special.

2. Document Types: Books.

3. Publication Years: 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011.

4. Language: English, Italian.

In Scopus, the search was performed in the field “Article Title, Abstract, Keywords” with the following criteria ( Table 2 ):

Table 2. Scopus criteria.

1. Publication Years: 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011.

2. Subject Area: Social Sciences.

3. Document Types: Books.

The initial results of the search across all databases produced a total of 22,854 articles, which when subjected to inclusion and exclusion criteria were reduced to 348.

2.2.2. Assessing the quality of studies

Subsequently, a thematic analysis procedure was performed: the abstracts and the index of the texts (where present) were read and analyzed, and the 271 texts that did not include any empirical evidence or were far removed from the disciplinary context and research questions were also removed. The remaining 77 texts were then considered for systematic review. The PRISMA process followed is illustrated in Figure 2 .

Figure 2. Review process PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) ( Page et al., 2021 ).

2.2.3. Data extraction and synthesis

The studies included in the review are reported in Table 3 .

Table 3. Studies (Scopus and Web of Science) included in the review.

The search results were acquired in. bib format and processed using Bibliometrix software ( Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017 ), which made it possible to extract basic information, publication details, and specific data from each article based on the initial categorization of the study. The annual output of the articles selected for the systematic review undergoes an exponential increase: in the first year of the decade under review, 2 articles were published, and in the last year considered, 48 ( Figure 3 ).

Figure 3. Annual scientific production in the decade 2011–2021.

As regards the titles of the works examined, Figure 4 shows the tree map of the most recurring words with their percentages and Figure 5 the co-occurrence network map of the most used keywords.

Figure 4. Treemap of word frequency in titles.

Figure 5. Co-occurrence map of words in titles.

The wordcloud ( Figure 6 ) reveals the main keywords related to the abstracts of the analyzed texts.

Figure 6. Wordcloud of abstracts.

2.3. Report

As regards the first research question (RQ1), the models for identifying and taking charge of gifted students are numerous. One reason for this is the existence of various conceptualizations of giftedness ( Cross, 2021 ). VanTassel-Baska (2021) explains how the idea of gifted development has always been radicalized into two distinct visions that have to do with the idea of ability. Ability is understood as genetic baggage that we bring into the environment with birth, or, on the other hand, the ability is shaped by the environment during growth. These two perspectives synthesized in the phrase “nature or nurture,” underlying two different attitudes of schools in taking charge: (1) the use of standardized tests to identify students with high IQs for whom we need to target advanced programs and (2) designing advanced educational interventions from which all students could benefit (VanTassel-Baska, p. 3).

Today, the paradigms underlying the construct of giftedness that guide its identification are multidimensional , that is, they presuppose an interaction between innate variables and environmental stimulation. The theoretical frame of reference can be traced back to psychological studies on the diversity of individual types of intelligence ( Gardner, 1983 ; Sternberg, 2003 ), which emphasize the variety of learning profiles and domains of excellent performance. The identification of gifted students thus becomes a mediation of case-specific procedures to be chosen because of the person’s characteristics and ranging from the professional use of validated instruments to observation protocols by school staff and family, to checklists for self-identification up to peer nomination.

One of the biggest risk factors for not identifying students is underachievement. Possible causes of underachievement at school with corresponding counterstrategies are outlined by Stanley (2021) and Siegle (2021) .

The present review includes volumes ( Montgomery, 2013 , 2015 ; Baum et al., 2021 ; Trail, 2021 ) that guide the identification of students with dual or multi-exceptionality, that is, students who co-occur with giftedness have one or more clinically relevant conditions. These co-occurring factors may not emerge due to a masking effect: it may be that the difficulties mask the giftedness or that the giftedness masks the difficulties, or that the high intellectual abilities lead to finding effective strategies to compensate for the deficit and neutralize both.

In response to the second research question (RQ2), the best educational and teaching practices aimed at talent development which can be divided into two contiguous macro-categories:

- School programs and methodologies based on enrichment (i.e., an expansion of the training offer) that aim to increase competence in specific content-disciplinary areas, for example, related to science ( Adams et al., 2021 ), mathematics ( Kennard, 2013 ; Johnsen and Sheffield, 2021 ), and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects ( Taber et al., 2017 ), earth science ( College of William & Mary’s Center for Gifted Education, 2021a , b , c ), music ( Savage, 2012 ), art ( Earle, 2013 ), physical education and sport ( Morley and Bailey, 2013 ), and in the study of the English language ( Reid, 2019 ).

- Programs to develop soft skills such as leadership skills ( Bean, 2021 ; Boswell et al., 2021 ), critical reading skills ( Callahan et al., 2021 ; Missett et al., 2021 ), engineering design ( Dailey, 2021 ), creativity ( Kim et al., 2013 ), grit and perseverance ( Sanguras, 2021 ); curiosity, neuroplasticity, metacognition, empathy, and wellbeing ( Fishman-Weaver, 2021 ), social and emotional development ( Cross, 2021 ; Hébert, 2021 ).

The above-mentioned volumes provide principles, teaching techniques, examples of activities, and materials for use by tutors, teachers, and educational staff. The model behind the suggested interventions is easily available in Renzulli and Reis’ Schoolwide Enrichment Model Renzulli and Reis, 1985 , 1994 , 1997 , 2014 , 2021 , which aims to develop the strengths and talents of all students because, as the authors write, “ A rising tide lifts all ships” ( Renzulli and Reis, 2014 , p. 5), proposing enriched learning experiences and higher standards of knowledge that can benefit all children. An example of the application of SEM to the science curriculum is presented in Heilbronner (2021) . Another inclusive and effective educational model for talent development is educational differentiation that aims to vary methods, strategies, and educational objectives in response to the variability of the class group. A clear framework is presented in Kaplan’s (2021) text, and various case studies of differentiated teaching for gifted children are presented in Weber et al.’s (2021a) text.

Some volumes propose guidelines for underrepresented gifted students: Azano and Callahan (2021) present educational programming for gifted students living in high-poverty rural areas of the United States of America; Baska and VanTassel-Baska (2021) , Felder et al. (2021) , and Stambaugh et al. (2021) provide effective guidelines for meeting the educational needs of gifted students with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds or those who are in poverty or for the twice exceptional; good practices in the case of twice and multi-exceptional are also illustrated by Weinfeld et al. (2021) .

Figure 7 shows the most relevant authors in the review.

Figure 7. Most relevant authors in the review.

The author with the most productions is Tracy L. Cross, Ph.D., an educational psychologist, Professor of Psychology and Gifted Education, President Emeritus of the NAGC (National Association for Gifted Children), and founder of the Center for Gifted Education, a research and program development center for gifted people, located at the College of William & Mary in Virginia. In second place is Carolyn M. Callahan (Ph.D. in Educational Psychology and Professor at the University of Virginia), while in third place, tied, are Amy P. Azano (Ph.D., Professor in the School of Education at Virginia Polytechnic Institute); Cecelia Boswell (Ed.D., educator, gifted education consultant in Texas); Susan K. Johnsen (Ph.D. in Special Education and Educational Psychology, Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University, Waco); Diane Montgomery (Ph.D., Psychologist, and Professor of Education at Middlesex University, London); Bharath Sriraman (Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics at the University of Montana, Missoula); Joyce VanTassel-Baska (Ed.D., Professor Emeritus of Education in the College of William & Mary, Virginia).

As previously mentioned, a second selection step was carried out on Google Books to include scientific products that, due to the “citation subculture,” had eluded the bibliometric database search.

The previously identified query was launched in Google Books. The initial results of the search in the search engine produced a total of 2,010 articles which, when subjected to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, were reduced to 321. Subsequently, a thematic analysis procedure was carried out: the abstracts and the index of the texts were read and analyzed, and those results far from the disciplinary context and research questions were removed, as well as texts with a non-scientific-academic slant. The remaining nine volumes were then selected for review and assessed for quality. The checklist chosen and adapted for the assessment of the quality of the studies is that of Papamitsiou and Economides (2014 ; Table 4 ), which involves descriptive questions with answers on a 3-point Likert scale.

Table 4. Quality assessment checklist.

In the first criterion (QA1) “Does the text clearly describe its objective?” the description of the objective of the text was assessed, which was made explicit in seven of the papers. In the second criterion (QA2) “Does the book clearly present a model (aimed at teachers and/or educators) of identification, taking charge, and/or gifted education?” examined whether the studies clearly presented a model for teachers/educators to identify, plan, and take charge of gifted students. This criterion was met by all the texts. As far as the third criterion (QA3) “Does the book describe clear and detailed outcomes of research or experiences of gifted education?” is concerned, this study confirmed that six works clearly and in detail describe the results of research and experience on the subject. The fourth criterion (QA4) “Do the examples clarify the sample, method, and objectives?” assessed whether the studies clearly presented the sample, method, and objectives, which were analytically clarified by five texts. The fifth criterion QA5 “Was the study cited by other authors?” concerned citations of the study in other documents. Google Scholar 5 was used to check the number of citations. Of the nine texts included, three were cited more than five times in another research.

Figure 8 shows the results of the quality assessment.

Figure 8. Quality assessment results.

According to the quality assessment checklist, QA5 was the only item that was not sufficiently satisfied. However, given the limitations of the citation system mentioned above, 6 all nine books ( Table 5 ) were included in the review.

Table 5. Books (Google Books) included in the review.

2.3.1. Discussion

All the texts turn out to be a valuable orientation tool for teachers and educators in their knowledge of models and instruments aimed at identifying the gifted student and accompanying him or her with a personalized educational program that embraces his or her educational needs and counteracts possible risk factors (misdiagnosis, socio-emotional difficulties, underachievement, and/or dropping out of school).

In the magnum sea of models and definitions of the construct of giftedness, Cornoldi (2019) tells the stories of Roberto, Magda, Giovanni, and Maria Luisa: four children with four different types of exceptionalities, making intelligible the variety within the construct of giftedness. These include the “unmeasurable” ones to which 7 devotes a chapter: imagination; creativity; intuitive thinking; and empathy. The relationship between talent and creativity is also addressed by Lucangeli (2019) .

Zanetti (2017) clarifies the fundamental question that it is not “What is giftedness and how is it measured?” but rather is “What does the social, school, and family environment do to promote opportunities for growth [.]?” 8 Indeed, there is no gifted prototype because both the profiles and talents of people with giftedness are extremely complex, heterogeneous, and unique. Precisely in order not to dissipate this valuable uniqueness, the school context must equip itself to be able to recognize each type and expression of potential and know how to develop it, supporting students in their growth process with individualized paths that counteract situations of discomfort and suffering.

Zanetti 9 informs us of the main problems reported by teachers of gifted children: difficulties in peer relations and behavioral problems in the classroom. Social-relational difficulties are attributable to being “ out-of-sync ” ( Silverman, 2002 ) with advanced cognitive development compared to emotional and social development. “When advanced cognition leads to awareness of information for which the child or adult is emotionally unprepared, vulnerability is the natural result.” 10 Behavioral problems, on the other hand, may result from the boredom children experience in front of already acquired knowledge. Possible solutions, as recommended by the author, are engaging students in peer tutoring activities, freely choosing the learning activity, supplementary or enrichment activities, and working in groups. The volume edited by Pinnelli (2019) consists of three parts (research and reflection; family and educational contexts area; and teaching area) that offer a comprehensive view of the state of the art about giftedness and offer a multilateral perspective of the contexts experienced by gifted people. To complement this volume on giftedness, the text offers case studies and specific scenarios, suggesting intervention strategies with an entire chapter dedicated to didactics for gifted pupils and a focus on didactic differentiation and related working strategies (Tic Tac Toe Strategy, Menu Strategy, and Cubing Strategy). The study stimulates a reflection on how to operationalize inclusiveness in different environments and informs us of the risk of categorizing giftedness in standards and labels, that is, of thinking about it in terms of clichés. The author analyzes the most common misconceptions of teachers on the subject, which are complicit in non-intervention: the myth of guaranteed scholastic success, that is, the belief that gifted people do not need specific interventions to excel; the myth of the ineluctable expression of talent, that is, the opinion that talent emerges spontaneously even in the most hostile environment; the myth of happiness, that is, the minimization of the sentimental complexity of gifted people, who are instead seen as always happy. 11

As proof of the fallacy of the myth of happiness, Sartori and Cinque (2019) focus on the “complex and articulated constellation of emotional and relational characteristics of gifted people” 12 that could condition the expression of potential: low self-esteem, perfectionism, a tendency to isolation, high sensitivity, rigidity in dealing with situations, and arborescent and dispersive thinking. 13

The book, edited by Sorrentino and Pinnelli (2021) , is an orientation tool for identifying gifted students. In a circularity between the theory and educational practice, the construct of giftedness is presented to teachers, guiding them toward a focused observation of the student’s potential and the design of targeted and personalized teaching interventions based on the interests and peculiarities of the individual. The theoretical framework is identified in the SEM, the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) developed by the American professor Renzulli (1977) , a pioneer in gifted education studies. Renzulli defines gifted behavior as an intersection of the above-average ability in any field, motivation, and creativity interacting with each other to create a diversity of gifted profiles. This “talent pool” is affected by contextual stimulation and, for this reason, schools must offer a vast spectrum of educational and teaching opportunities appropriate to their development. To be nurtured, the potential must first be identified. To address this need for identification, the authors validate the tool for teachers’ use. The validation was conducted on an Italian sample. The tool allows to investigate the presence of gifted students from 8 years of age or above, assessing their behavior and abilities compared to peers in various areas, according to a 6-point Likert scale.

There are 14 areas to be observed and they can be divided into basic scales (learning, creativity, motivation, and leadership); science area scales (artistic aptitude, precision, and communicative expressiveness, planning), and transversal scales (science, technology, reading, mathematics, music, and drama). The scale scores are to be interpreted based on local percentiles that can be determined by accessing the online resource provided by the book. As an addition to the original text, the Italian edition of the Renzulli Scales guides the reader in a comparison between the Italian school model and the US model in taking care of gifted pupils. Furthermore, the volume edited by Pinnelli and Sorrentino accompanies a formation in the use of the Renzulli Scales: teacher training. In a harmonious balance between testing and observation, between the subjective and the objective, the school is equipped with a decisive tool to assume a practical definition of giftedness, facilitating the identification, inclusion, and promotion of differences.

At the same time, emphasizing the Renzulli model, a necessary book for programming interventions aimed at the valorization of exceptionalities is the practical guide to the SEM—School Enrichment Model, edited by Milan (2021) . The SEM “provides enrichment opportunities for all students and, at the same time, ensures advanced activities for those pupils who are highly motivated and have high skills and performance” (Milan, p. 5) by including them within the regular school curriculum. In fact, Renzulli and Reis do not say of giftedness but of “gifted behaviors” to emphasize the idea of the dynamism of gifted behaviors that occurs “in certain people, at certain times and in certain circumstances” ( Milan, 2021 ). The SEM starts from the assumption that schools should be the place for the development of giftedness ( Renzulli, 1994 ) and therefore places the student and his/her wellbeing at the center of educational action, adopting teaching strategies to enhance the student in all his/her complex identity. Teachers help learners understand their strengths (abilities, interests, and learning styles) and enter the information into a management model called the Total Talent Portfolio, which is then used to decide on the educational services to be offered to develop potential. The personalization of the pupil’s learning program is enabled by the compacting of curriculum, which makes it possible to eliminate the part of the program that has already been learned and the repetition of previously acquired tasks, thus ensuring that time is found for more challenging activities aimed at advanced and motivating objectives to enable the development of personal abilities and talents ( Renzulli and Reis, 1998 ). This development takes place from an enrichment perspective that increases creative productivity by exposing students to a variety of topics, ideas, and areas of study and then subsequently teaching them to apply advanced content in those areas.

In the last part of Sorrentino’s (2021) book, which offers a precise comparison of international educational policies and models of educational identification and intervention, there is experimentation of Renzulli’s Total Talent Portfolio with a 13-year-old student who was not considered gifted by his teachers and in a situation of school underachievement with consequent experiences of demotivation. The compilation of the Total Talent Portfolio prompted the student to reflect on his abilities and the importance of commitment to transform these abilities into talent. 14

3. Conclusion

3.1. the limit of “citation culture”.

In Figures 9 , 10 , we note how almost all the universities involved in the review are American, in spite of the significant and important research contribution of the European Academy and the eastern part of the world (especially Australia). Although the present review is deliberately restricted to the pedagogical-didactic area, it is evident that most of the authors come from the psychological disciplinary field and not from the pedagogical one. Although an interactive network between the professional figures like the psychologist, the pedagogue, and the educator is indispensable and fruitful for improving the field of education of gifted students, this fact has pointed out to avoid the risk of persevering in a psychometric model of interpreting the educational process and as an appeal for more systematic educational research.

Figure 9. Most relevant affiliations in the review.

Figure 10. Most relevant states in the review.

This geographic and scientific-sectoral predominance could depend on two reasons: the well-known criticality of the databases used (Scopus and WoS) for the humanities and social sciences relating to the “strong predominance of Western English-language journals” ( Turbanti, 2014 ) and the “citation culture” ( Wouters, 1999 , p. 2): a subculture that, over the last two decades, has gradually evolved to the point where work is evaluated according to the number of citations obtained. Wouters (pp. 210-212) points out the presence of multiple “citation cultures,” that is, multiple habits and logics regarding citations that are different in the various disciplinary areas of interest. For example, as the University of Palermo Library Portal explains, the use of bibliometric indicators (based on the quantitative citation analysis) is not sufficient as a measure of performance in the social sciences and humanities disciplines, in contrast to the subject areas belonging to the STM disciplines. Indeed, in the SSH disciplines, evaluation is purely qualitative (e.g., peer review). This scarce presence of SSH texts in non-English language. 15

3.2. Future research perspectives

To conclude, this review of systematic literature on gifted education has shown a conspicuous production in both the Italian and international contexts, with the prevalence of recently published works, an indication of a lively interest in the subject, above all toward the didactic and educational support of the gifted student.

This rising attention can be attributed to the growth of special pedagogy and didactics that are expanding the “inclusive vision” by giving attention and value to all kinds of uniqueness ( Pinnelli, 2019 ; Baccassino and Pinnelli, 2022 ). However, the review highlighted a limitation in searching for scientific products related to the humanities-social sciences (SSH) in the main international reference databases (Scopus and Web of Science). In fact, these databases select results based on bibliometric indices (quantitative analysis of bibliographic citations) and based on the language used (English): two criteria that are little used in the SSH literature.

Multiple models and instruments for identifying the gifted student emerge from the results: assessment tools for psychologists and professionals; potential identification tools for use by teachers and educators; nomination and identification by a peer; and self-nomination. The main model of educational planning for the gifted population, but extendable to all, is the SEM—(Schoolwide Enrichment Model) that provides for the identification of talents in the classroom, the enrichment of the educational offer in three directions, the compaction of learning already acquired, and the orientation of choices using continuous verification of the interests, learning modes, and styles and strengths of the students.

The texts highlight numerous instructional and educational programming models for gifted students in all school grades. The review also reveals a plurality of misrepresentations and inaccurate beliefs about giftedness, such as teachers’ false conviction that gifted students are self-sufficient in learning and therefore do not need help. Instead, as Vygotskij (1973) teaches, there is always a potential for learning development and its enhancement is the responsibility and prerogative of the school community. These misrepresentations are the very reason for inadequate or absence interventions by schools. It is therefore necessary to implement specific training interventions for educators to remove these misconceptions? In this way, teachers would become conscious of the risk and protective factors of gifted pupils and the wide range of possible actions to promote the wellbeing of gifted students and enhance their talents.

Such formation, from a future research perspective, could be aimed not only at teachers but also at the peer group. In fact, gaps in research are both analysis on the motivations behind fragile peer attachment and the development of prosocial educational intervention models aimed at the entire class group. This is because one of the basic needs of the gifted population that emerges in the review is peer recognition and a better socialization experience. It would be important to analyze the representation and belief system that the peer group has about the gifted student to focus educational intervention not only on the individual but on the whole class community. This would help gifted students not only on the level of learning but also on the level of emotional needs, triggering prosocial behaviors and countering the frequent risks of isolation and alienation.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

SP conceived and designed the study, contributing to the choice of objectives, and research questions and methodological protocol. FB selected, extracted, and processed the dataset. Both authors wrote all sections of the manuscript, contributed to its revision, discussed the data, and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• ^ UNESCO (1994) . World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Final Report.
• ^ For more details, see conclusions.
• ^ Google Books was used because it offers a greater availability of textbooks (the subject of the review) than the better-known search engine Google Scholar, which focuses, instead, mainly on scientific proceedings and articles.
• ^ Moher et al., 2009 . Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097.
• ^ Citation checks on 14 August 2022.
• ^ See pp. 12–13.
• ^ Mormando (2019) . Altissimo potenziale intellettivo. Strategie didattico-educative e percorsi di sviluppo dall’infanzia all’età adulta. Trento: Erickson. p. 55.
• ^ Zanetti (2017) . Bambini e ragazzi ad alto potenziale. Roma, Carocci Faber, pp. 22–23.
• ^ Zanetti (2017) . Bambini e ragazzi ad alto potenziale . Roma, Carocci Faber, pp. 99.
• ^ Silverman (2005) . INTENSITIVE! Intensities and sensitivities of the gifted. Social and emotional needs of gifted children. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia: Tasmanian Association for the Gifted , p. 11.
• ^ Pinnelli (2019) . Plusdotazione e scuola inclusiva. Modelli, percorsi e strategie di intervento. Lecce-Brescia: Pensa MultiMedia, pp. 21–22.
• ^ Sartori and Cinque (2019) . Gifted. Conoscere e valorizzare i giovani plusdotati e di talento dentro e fuori la scuola. Roma: Magi. p. 159.
• ^ Sartori and Cinque (2019) . Gifted. Conoscere e valorizzare i giovani plusdotati e di talento dentro e fuori la scuola. Roma: Magi, 160–161.
• ^ Sorrentino (2021) . Inclusive gifted education: From evidence-based research to practice . Armando Editore. p. 116.
• ^ Source: https://www.unipa.it/biblioteche/fare-ricerca/bibliometria/indicatori-bibliometrici/indicatori-aree-non-bibliometriche/ [accessed on 11 August 2022].

Adams, C. M., Cotabish, A., and Ricci, M. C. (2021). Using the next-generation science standards with gifted and advanced learners. New York, NY: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Ambrose, D., Sternberg, R., and Sriraman, B. (eds) (2013b). Confronting dogmatism in gifted education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ambrose, D., Sriraman, B., and Cross, T. L. (eds) (2013a). The Roeper school: A model for holistic development of high ability (Vol. 4). Roeper Rev. 38, 267–268.

Aria, M., and Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 11, 959–975.

Azano, A. P., and Callahan, C. M. (eds) (2021). Gifted education in rural schools: Developing place-based interventions. New York, NY: Routledge.

Baccassino, F., and Pinnelli, S. (2022). Giftedness in the eyes of cinema and TV series. A pedagogical reading of representations of talent in audio-visual production. Ital. J. Spec. Educ. Incl . 1, 60–72. doi: 10.7346/sipes-01-2022-05

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bakken, J. P., Rotatori, A. F., and Obiakor, F. E. (eds) (2014). Gifted education: Current perspectives and issues. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Ballam, N., and Moltzen, R. (2017). “Introduction to giftedness and talent: Australasian perspectives,” in Giftedness and talent , eds N. D. Ballam and R. Moltzen (Singapore: Springer), 1–5.

Baska, A., and VanTassel-Baska, J. (2021). Interventions that work with: Special populations in gifted education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Baum, S. M., Schader, R. M., and Owen, S. V. (2021). To be gifted & learning disabled: Strength-based strategies for helping twice-exceptional students with LD, ADHD, ASD, and more. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bean, S. M. (2021). Developing Leadership Potential in Gifted Students: The Practical Strategies Series in Gifted Education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Boswell, C., Christopher, M., and Colburn, J. J. (2021). Leadership for kids: Curriculum for building intentional leadership in gifted learners (Grades 3-6). New York, NY: Routledge.

Brigham, D., Fell, J., Simons, C., Strunk, K., and Yodice, A. (2021). Units of Instruction for gifted learners: Grades 2-8. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.

Buttriss, and Callander. (2014). Gifted and Talented Education from AZ. New York, NY: Routledge.

Callahan, C. M., Missett, T. C., Azano, A. P., Caughey, M., Brodersen, A. V., and Tackett, M. (2021). Fiction and nonfiction language arts units for gifted students in grade 4: Language arts units for gifted students in grade 4. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cannaday, J. (ed.) (2018). Curriculum development for gifted education programs. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Carman, C. A. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: Fifteen years of definitions of giftedness in research. J. Adv. Acad. 24, 52–70.

Coleman, M. R., and Johnsen, S. K. (2021). I for gifted students: A CEC-TAG educational resource. New York, NY: Routledge.

College of William & Mary’s Center for Gifted Education (2021a). Water works: A physical science unit for high-ability learners in grades K–1. New York, NY: Routledge.

College of William & Mary’s Center for Gifted Education (2021b). Survive and thrive; a life science unit for high-ability learners in grades K-1. New York, NY: Routledge.

College of William & Mary’s Center for Gifted Education (2021c). Invitation to invent: A physical science unit for high-ability learners (Grades 3-4). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cornoldi, C. (2019). Bambini eccezionali: superdotati, talentosi, creativi o geni. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Cronin, P., Ryan, F., and Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. Br. J. Nurs. 17, 38–43.

Cross, T. L. (2021). On the social and emotional lives of gifted children. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cross, T. L., and Cross, J. R. (eds) (2021). Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cross, T. L., and Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (eds) (2021). Conceptual frameworks for giftedness and talent development: Enduring theories and comprehensive models in gifted education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Dailey, D. (2021). Thinking like an engineer GRADE 4: Lessons that develop habits of mind and thinking skills for young engineers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., and Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented , 6th Edn. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Delaubier, J. P. (2002). La scolarisation des enfants intellectuellement precoces, Rapport a Monsieur le Ministre de l?Education Nationale. Paris: Monsieur le Ministre de l?Education Nationale.

DuBois, M. P., and Greene, R. M. (2021). Supporting gifted ELLs in the Latinx Community: practical strategies, K-12. New York, NY: Routledge.

Earle, K. (2013). Meeting the needs of your most able pupils in art. New York, NY: Routledge.

Eyre, D. (2013). Able children in ordinary schools. New York, NY: Routledge.

Fad, K. M., and Ryser, G. (2021). Proven strategies that work for teaching gifted & advanced learners for grades 3-8. New York, NY: Routledge.

Felder, M. T., Taradash, G. D., Antoine, E., Ricci, M. C., Stemple, M., Byamugisha, M., et al. (2021). Increasing diversity in gifted education: Research-based strategies for identification and program services. New York, NY: Routledge.

Fiorucci, A. (2017). I bisogni formativi speciali dei gifted students. Gli atteggiamenti degli insegnanti. L Integr. Scolast. Soc. 16, 59–65.

Fishman-Weaver, K. (2021). Brain-based learning with gifted students: Lessons from neuroscience on cultivating curiosity, metacognition, empathy, and brain plasticity: Grades 3-6. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ford, D. Y. (2021). Multicultural gifted education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gagné, F. (1993). “Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities,” in International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent , eds K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, and A. H. Passow (Oxford: Pergamon Press), 69–87.

Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. New York, NY: Macmillan and Co. doi: 10.1037/13474-000

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.

George, D. (2012). The challenge of the able child. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gray-Fow, B. (2012). Discovering and developing talent in schools: An inclusive approach. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Hébert, T. P. (2021). Understanding the social and emotional lives of gifted students. New York, NY: Routledge.

Heilbronner, N. L. (2021). The schoolwide enrichment model in science: A hands-on approach for engaging young scientists. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hong, E., and Milgram, R. M. (2011). Preventing talent loss. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hymer, B., Whitehead, J., and Huxtable, M. (2008). Gifts, talents and education: A living theory approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

Javits, J. K., Mary, W., Bracken, B. A., VanTassel-Baska, J., Bland, L. C., Stambaugh, T., et al. (2021). How the sun makes our day: An earth and space science unit for high-ability learners in kindergarten and first grade. New York, NY: Routledge.

Johnsen, S. K., and Sheffield, L. J. (2021). Using the common core state standards for mathematics with gifted and advanced learners. New York, NY: Routledge.

Johnsen, S. K., Simonds, M., and Voss, M. (2021). Implementing evidence-based practices in gifted education: Professional learning modules on universal screening, grouping, acceleration, and equity in gifted programs. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kaplan, S. N. (2021). Differentiated curriculum and instruction for advanced and gifted learners. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kennard, R. (2013). Teaching mathematically able children. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kim, K. H., Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., and Sriraman, B. (eds) (2013). Creatively gifted students are not like other gifted students: Research, theory, and practice , Vol. 5. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.

Kitchenham, B., and Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering version 2.3. Engineering 45:1051. doi: 10.1145/1134285.1134500

Lewis, L. C., Rivera, A., and Roby, D. (2021). Identifying & serving: Culturally and linguistically diverse gifted students. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lucangeli, D. (2019). Gifted. la mente geniale [riconoscere ed educare bambini plusdotati]. New York, NY: Vimeo, Inc.

Makel, M. C., Rinn, A. N., and Plucker, J. A. (eds) (2021). From giftedness togifted education: Reflecting theory in practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Marca Wolfensberger, D. V. (2015). Talent development in European higher education: Honors programs in the Benelux, Nordic and German-speaking Countries. Berlin: Springer Nature, 335.

Marland, S. P. Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the congress of the united states by the U.S. Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to the U.S. Office of Education . (Government Documents, Y4.L 11/2: G36), Vol. 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Milan, L. (ed.) (2021). Il modello di arricchimento scolastico. Guida pratica per lo sviluppo del talento. Bergamo: Edizioni Junior.

Missett, T. C., Azano, A. P., and Callahan, C. M. (2021). Research and rhetoric: Language arts units for gifted students in grade 5. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mofield, E., and Phelps, V. (2021). Collaboration, coteaching, and coaching in gifted education: Sharing strategies to support gifted learners. New York, NY: Routledge.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Montgomery, D. (2013). Gifted and talented children with special educational needs: Double exceptionality. New York, NY: Routledge.

Montgomery, D. (2015). Teaching gifted children with special educational needs: Supporting dual and multiple exceptionality. New York, NY: Routledge.

Morley, D., and Bailey, R. (2013). Meeting the needs of your most able pupils: Physical education and sport. Abingdon: Routledge.

Mormando, F. (2019). Altissimo potenziale intellettivo. Strategie didattico-educative e percorsi di sviluppo dall’infanzia all’età adulta. Trento: Erickson.

Olszewski-Kubillus, P., Subotnik, R. F., and Worrell, F. C. (2021). Talent development as a framework for gifted education: Implications for best practices and applications in schools. New York, NY: Routledge.

Page, M., McKenzie, J., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., Mulrow, C., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71

Papamitsiou, Z., and Economides, A. A. (2014). Learning analytics and educational data mining in practice: A systematic literature review of empirical evidence. Educ. Technol. Soc. 17, 49–64.

Pardeck, J. T., and Murphy, J. W. (1990). Young gifted children: Identification, programming, and socio-psychological issues. Early Child Dev. Care 63, 3–8.

Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (1994). Recommendation 1248. On education for gifted children. Strasbourg: Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe.

Peters, S. J., Matthews, M. S., McBee, M. T., and McCoach, D. B. (2021). Beyond gifted education: Designing and implementing advanced academic programs. New York, NY: Routledge.

Pfeiffer, S. I. (ed.) (2018). Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

Phillipson, S. N., Stoeger, H., and Ziegler, A. (eds) (2013). Exceptionality in East Asia: Explorations in the actiotope model of giftedness. New York, NY: Routledge.

Pinnelli, S. (2017). L’educazione inclusiva nel continuum del progetto pedagogico. L Integr. Scolast. Soc. 16, 59–65.

Pinnelli, S. (2019). Plusdotazione e scuola inclusiva. Modelli, percorsi e strategie di intervento. Lecce: Pensa MultiMedia.

Plucker, J. A., and Callahan, C. M. (eds) (2021). Critical issues and practices in gifted education: A survey of current research on giftedness and talent development. New York, NY: Routledge.

Reid, E. (2019). English language education to pupils with general intellectual giftedness. Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag.

Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A plan for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Q. 21, 227–233.

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan 60:180.

Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Renzulli, J. S., and Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Centre, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S., and Reis, S. M. (1994). Research related to the Schoolwide enrichment model. Gift. Child Q. 38, 2–14.

Renzulli, J. S., and Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for talent development , 2nd Edn. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Renzulli, J. S., and Reis, S. M. (1998). Talent development through curriculum differentiation. NASSP Bulletin 82, 61–64.

Renzulli, J. S., and Reis, S. M. (2014). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for talent development , 3rd Edn. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Renzulli, J., and Reis, S. M. (2021). Reflections on gifted education: Critical works by Joseph S. Renzulli and colleagues. New York, NY: Routledge.

Robins, J. H., Jolly, J. L., Karnes, F. A., and Bean, S. M. (eds) (2021). Methods and materials for teaching the gifted. New York, NY: Routledge.

Robinson, A., and Jolly, J. (2014). A century of contributions to gifted education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Romey, E. (2013). Finding John Galt. People, politics, and practice in gifted education. Columbus, GA: Columbus State University.

Sanguras, L. Y. (2021). Grit in the classroom: Building perseverance for excellence in today’s students. Abingdon: Routledge.

Sani, R. (2012). La valutazione della ricerca nell’ambito delle Scienze dell’educazione: Un problema di metodo. Educ. Sci. Soc. 2, 176–190.

Sartori, L., and Cinque, M. (2019). Gifted. Conoscere e valorizzare i giovani plusdotati e di talento dentro e fuori la scuola. Roma: Magi.

Savage, J. (2012). Meeting the needs of your most able pupils: Music. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Siegle, D. (2021). The underachieving gifted child: Recognizing, understanding, and reversing underachievement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Silverman, L. K. (2002). Upside-down brilliance: The visual-spatial learner. Denver, CO: DeLeon Publishing.

Silverman, L. K. (2005). INTENSITIVE!. Intensities and sensitivities of the gifted. Social and emotional needs of gifted children. Hobart: Tasmanian Association for the Gifted.

Smith, K. J. (2021). Challenging units for gifted learners: Teaching the way gifted students think. New York, NY: Routledge.

Smutny, J. F., and Von Fremd, S. E. (2011). Teaching advanced learners in the general education classroom: Doing more with less! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin press.

Sorrentino, C. (2021). Inclusive gifted education: From evidence-based research to practice. Rome: Armando Editore.

Sorrentino, C., and Pinnelli, S. (2021). Scale renzulli. Scale per l’identificazione delle caratteristiche comportamentali degli studenti plusdotati. Test e strumenti di valutazione. Trento: Scuola Erickson.

Stambaugh, T., Chandler, K. L., Adams, C. M., Cross, T. L., Johnsen, S. K., and Montgomery, D. (2021). Effective curriculum for underserved gifted students: A cec-tag educational resource. New York, NY: Routledge.

Stanley, T. (2021). When smart kids underachieve in school: Practical solutions for teachers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Stephens, K. R., and Karnes, F. A. (eds) (2021). Introduction to curriculum design in gifted education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511509612

Sutherland, M. (ed.) (2012). Gifted and talented in the early years: Practical activities for children aged 3 to 6. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taber, K., Sumida, M., and Mcclue, L. (2017). Teaching gifted learners in STEM subjects. New York, NY: Routledge.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Reflection and refraction of light on the gifted. An Editorial. Roeper Rev. 8, 212–218.

Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Trail, B. A. (2021). Twice-exceptional gifted children: Understanding, teaching, and counseling gifted students. New York, NY: Routledge.

Turbanti, S. (2014). Navigare nel mare di Scopus, Web of science e Google Scholar: l’avvio di una ricerca sulla vitalità delle discipline archivistiche e biblioteconomiche italiane. AIB Studi 54:5.

UNESCO (1994). World conference on special needs education: Access and quality. Final Report. Paris: UNESCO.

United Nations [UN] (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. New York, NY: UN.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (ed.) (2021). Talent development in gifted education: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

VanTassel-Baska, J., and Little, C. A. (eds) (2021). Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners. New York, NY: Routledge.

Vidergor, H. E., and Harris, C. R. (eds) (2015). Applied practice for educators of gifted and able learners. Berlin: Springer.

Vygotskij, L. (1973). Lo sviluppo psichico del bambino. Roma: Editori Riuniti.

Weber, C. L., Boswell, C., and Behrens, W. A. (2021b). Exploring critical issues in gifted education: A case studies approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

Weber, C. L., Behrens, W. A., and Boswell, C. (2021a). Differentiating instruction for gifted learners: A case studies approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

Weinfeld, R., Barnes-Robinson, L., Jeweler, S., and Shevitz, B. R. (2021). Smart kids with learning difficulties: Overcoming obstacles and realizing potential. New York, NY: Routledge.

Weisberg, R. W. (2006). “Modes of expertise in creative thinking: Evidence from case studies,” in The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance , eds K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 761–787.

Witty, P. (1958). “Who are the gifted?,” in Education for the gifted: The fifty-seventh yearbook for the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2 , ed. N. B. Henry (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), 41–63.

Wouters, P. F. (1999). The citation culture (Doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Zanetti, M. A. (2017). Bambini e ragazzi ad alto potenziale. Roma: Carocci Faber.

Keywords : giftedness, gifted education, special educational needs, educational models, systematic literature review

Citation: Baccassino F and Pinnelli S (2023) Giftedness and gifted education: A systematic literature review. Front. Educ. 7:1073007. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.1073007

Received: 18 October 2022; Accepted: 05 December 2022; Published: 11 January 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Baccassino and Pinnelli. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

This article is part of the Research Topic

Insights in Teacher Education: 2022

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education PR/Award #R305C200012 and #R305C140018

National Center for Research on Gifted Education

"Every Child Has a Right to Learn Something New Every Day"

— NCRGE Research Rationale

Policymakers, educators, and parents want assurance that all of the nation’s gifted and talented students receive instruction that is sufficiently challenging and that will allow these students to reach their full potential.

Unfortunately, two crucial issues continue to plague gifted education:

• Underrepresented populations continue to be under identified as gifted and underserved by programs for the gifted.
• Research on best-practice interventions for gifted students and outcomes of gifted programs and services is sparse.

Our Center researchers are conducting three secondary studies and one randomized control trial (RCT) to provide stakeholders with tools to better recognize and harness untapped talent and increase our understanding of the outcomes of gifted services.

Two Current Research Opportunities

Study of subject acceleration practices – seeking interview participants.

The National Center for Research on Gifted Education is conducting a study to document and disseminate information on how school districts implement subject acceleration (i.e., advancing students in one or more subject areas without whole-grade accelerating the student; may exist in combination with whole-grade acceleration procedures). We are seeking responses from school districts who have systematic procedures in place for subject acceleration. Our study goal is to describe common procedures in place in districts across the country as guidance for districts considering how to approach this practice.

Participation in the study will involve an online interview of a knowledgeable member of the district staff (e.g., gifted program coordinator, director of advanced academics) with the study team. We expect the interview to last approximately 1 hour. Participants will receive questions in advance and will also have the option of submitting responses in writing.

Learn more by reviewing the consent form below or by reaching out to Catherine Little at [email protected] or 860-486-2754.

UConn IRB Protocol X23-0389 Approved July 13, 2023

Review the Consent Form

Study to Expand Single-Subject and Whole Grade Acceleration for Grade 2 and 3 Students

The National Center for Research on Gifted Education is seeking elementary schools (at least grades 2-5) interested in expanding their use of subject-specific and whole-grade acceleration as a way to meet the needs of advanced learners. We are seeking participants for research that can begin in academic year 2023-24.  Academic acceleration is the intervention for advanced learners that has shown the greatest effect on learning and achievement.

As part of this research project, your school will receive:

• professional learning around what acceleration actually is and how it can be used
• universal screening process to determine which students should be considered for acceleration
• resources and professional learning to help you implement subject-specific and whole-grade acceleration decisions for qualifying students

Our Latest Research Finding

Identification systems typically involve conjunctive ("And"), disjunctive ("Or"), and compensatory ("Mean") rules for combining multiple measures. As correlations among assessments decrease, conjunctive and compensatory systems identify fewer students (unless the cut-off for the mean score is adjusted for shrinkage), while disjunctive rules identify more students for programming. However, both researchers and practitioners in gifted education often assume that correlations among multiple identification measures are the same for students from different backgrounds. We addressed this issue recently in an AERA paper presentation titled "Could 'Or' Give Us More? The Equity Implications of Combination Rules When Correlations Vary Across Groups." If correlations among measures are lower for one group than another, the group with lower correlations would be disadvantaged by conjunctive (AND) and compensatory (MEAN) rules (unless the compensatory rule computes shrinkage factors separately for each subgroup). Conversely, they would be advantaged by disjunctive (OR) rules. We demonstrated how correlations among identification assessments vary across demographic subgroups and how this influences the representation of those groups under the AND, MEAN, and OR rules. The key takeaways from this paper presentation were:

• Different combination rules can be implemented to identify similar overall percentages of students.
• Correlations among identification measures do appear to vary somewhat across demographic groups, and this has implications for how combination rules can be expected to perform.
• No combination rule can create parity when mean score differences across subgroups are substantial.

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development

The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (1990-2013)

The National Research Center on Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT) successfully competed for a series of federally funded grants (1990-2013) under the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Education Act. Our final studies focused on What Works in Gifted Education with the mathematics study at the University of Connecticut and the reading/language arts study at the University of Virginia. The respective research teams developed model-based curricula in mathematics for grade 3 students in general education classrooms and reading/language arts curricula for grade 3 students in gifted and talented programs reflecting the following curricular/instructional models: (a) Differentiation of Instruction Model (Carol Ann Tomlinson); (b) Depth and Complexity Model (Sandra N. Kaplan), and (c) Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Joseph S. Renzulli and Sally M. Reis). Multiple cohorts of students and their teachers participated in the two curricular studies and initial quantitative and qualitative results were shared with study participants and conference participants. We completed three additional projects: (a) explored the theory of the malleability of intelligence related to research by Dr. Carol Dweck, Stanford University, and others; (b) summarized the curricular and instructional practices in STEM high schools; and (c) analyzed the status of gifted education programming and services across the nation. An overview of these projects follows.

Malleable Minds Project

Dr. Carolyn M. Callahan worked with Dr. Rena Subotnik (Director of the Center for Psychology in the Schools and Education at the American Psychological Association), Dr. Ann Robinson (Past President of the National Association for Gifted Children), and Patricia Johnson (former Javits Program Director) to launch an initiative involving social and cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists. The goal of the project was to share emerging theories about student learning and talent development with researchers in gifted and talented education. The resulting book published by The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented entitled Malleable Minds: Translating Insights From Psychology and Neuroscience to Gifted Education (Subotnik, Robinson, Callahan, & Gubbins, 2012), presents the latest research, followed by how the research can inform theory and practices in gifted and talented education, and ending with illustrative cases that demonstrate the application of the research to teaching/learning environments. The book has been popular in psychology and educational psychology courses and seminars. The book may be ordered directly from The National Research on the Gifted and Talented at ( Malleable Minds ).

STEM Schools of Excellence

The University of Connecticut and University of Virginia completed the implementation of a study of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Schools of Excellence. The University of Connecticut created an extensive interactive matrix of STEM high schools around the country. From this matrix, 12 schools representing different service delivery models (e.g., school-within-a-school, residential school, magnet school, charter school, comprehensive high school) were selected for onsite observations, administrator interviews, teacher focus groups, and student focus groups. The purpose of the onsite visits was to obtain first-hand knowledge of effective curricular and instructional practices that may be unique to STEM schools. The information gleaned from a review of existing documents, websites, observations, interviews, and focus groups yielded multiple potential survey items that were organized and classified categorically to reflect the practices. Items became the basis for surveys for administrators and their teachers. Resulting data from the onsite data collection and surveys are the basis for multiple journal articles,(Bruce-Davis et al., 2014).

In addition, we created an eBook (Gubbins et al., 2013) on the status of STEM high schools in the United States which is available from STEM eBook . The quantitative and qualitative data provide guidance for future and current developers of STEM high schools.

Status of Gifted Education Programming

The United States Department of Education commissioned the University of Virginia to conduct a national survey focusing on the status of K-12 gifted programming opportunities across our nation. Data from elementary, middle, and high schools were used to develop portraits of the programming and services; to identify policy inputs (e.g., mandates, funding practices, teacher qualifications, program evaluation); and to provide accurate and comprehensive data to federal, state, and local policy makers as well as researchers and practitioners (Callahan, Moon, & Oh, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c). The reports are available from the National Association for Gifted Children’s website ( www.nagc.org ).

The research that we have conducted for over 2 decades required the cooperation and collaboration of administrators, teachers, and students from all over the country (Gubbins, Callahan, & Renzulli, 2014; Renzulli, Callahan, & Gubbins, 2014). We gratefully acknowledge the role that each person played in providing us with opportunities to collect extensive data on critical topics and report the findings to multiple audiences. Research teams associated with The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented continue to share their scholarly work at conferences as well as through books, book chapters, and articles. We hope you share our research with other interested educators involved with gifted and talented education by visiting our website for the latest information on meeting the needs of gifted and talented students.

A Field Guide to Gifted Students

• Posted February 12, 2021
• By Lory Hough
• Student Achievement and Outcomes
• Teachers and Teaching

There’s Louis, the fifth-grader who can talk about concepts like the inner workings of a computer and the language of music. Haley, the perfectionist who stays up until 1 a.m. rewriting an already perfect paper and has meltdowns. And Pam, a shy third-grader who checked out a dozen books from the school library just before winter break and can talk about blimps and batting averages in depth. These are just three of the 12 fictional neurodivergent students that Charlotte Agell , Ed.M.’86, profiles with Molly Kellogg in her new book, A Field Guild to Gifted Students — her 15th book overall. Agell, a teacher at an elementary school and middle school in Yarmouth, Maine, talked to Ed. about writing for teachers, common characteristics, and who gets missed.   

What exactly is a gifted student? It's more than just the smartest kid in the grade, right? This answer could go on for pages. What we put on our gifted and talented instructional support site in my district is, for starters, the following: There are many definitions of giftedness, ranging from the very narrow (the top 1% of the population based on IQ) to the very broad (the top 20% based on the School-wide Enrichment Model). The state of Maine defines gifted children as those in grades K–12 who excel, or have the potential to excel, beyond their age peers, in the regular school program, to the extent that they need and can benefit from programming for the gifted and talented. One of the ways I look at it is that gifted students are quite likely to take an unusual route to an unexpected destination. Rubrics are not often their natural habitats. And — importantly — they are learners who are often at risk. High achievement is very possible for them, but not guaranteed at all. That's one of the reasons we wrote this book.

And you wrote it for teachers? This book is an illustrated introductory workbook designed primarily for teachers. School can feel like the wrong fit for many gifted learners. This book aims to help educators identify and begin to support their gifted learners. Parents may also find it useful. I know that when I first “met” my daughter, and as I watched her grow up, I didn’t have much vocabulary for what was going on, nor much understanding. She and I both wish I’d known the term “deviance fatigue,” for example, back then!

This field guide, as you call it, seems very usable. We ask the world of teachers. They must consider the needs of such a diverse array of learners, often in several subjects. Gifted students are rare birds, truly neurodivergent. What should a teacher do when one or more alights in the classroom? This field guide will begin to help answer that question.

This book started as material in workshops you were running for other teachers. Why did it become a book? My co-author, Molly Kellogg, and I developed this book after a workshop we presented in various northern New England settings kept being particularly well met. Participants often asked for our materials. After offering several versions of not-that-great (euphemism!) websites, we had a sort of Eureka moment: Why not make a book?

Charlotte Agell

Why 12 profiles of fictional students? When my colleague and I taught together, we came across numerous helpful screening checklists. One of them presented 12 common characteristics, including both positive and negative manifestations. This approach was very helpful to us, and to the classroom teachers with whom we worked. For example, a superior abstract reasoner may resist rote learning and refuse, or be unable to, explain their thinking. Gifted and talented students can be so complex. They are not to be confused with the “bright hard worker.” The positive AND negative aspects on the checklist brought it all home. In our workshops, the characteristics came together in the form of 12 hypothetical students, whom we employed as discussion starters. I had such fun drawing them. (My other work life is one of picture book author/illustrator.)

How did you get involved in the gifted student field to begin with? When I was at HGSE, in the mid '80s, I was deeply involved with second language acquisition. I had come from the ELL field, and would return to it. My favorite classes were with Catherine Snow . My students were ESL, as we called it back then, and so, in a sense, was I. I remember learning English at a young age, Swedish being my first language. A bunch of years later, I ended up transitioning to gifted and talented education. It was a new and fascinating field. It also gave me a better understanding of my eldest, who came downstairs one day at the age of three, reading.

Of the 12 learners in your book, who typically gets "overlooked" the most? Twice exceptional learners are at high risk for being supported in school only for their deficits, not their amazing strengths. That would be one answer. Another would be students of color, who have traditionally been overlooked. During this pandemic time, the “missed that kid” gap may well be further expanded. Who will notice our gifted homeless children? I worry that, in too many districts, gifted and talented programs serve the bright children of the loudest parents, ones of privilege for whom schooling worked well. We need to widen our net everywhere.

What would be the next step for someone after using this book? Assuming that the teacher or parent ordered the book due to a professional or personal need to understand a gifted and talented child, the next step would be to explore the profiles in the book and to find the one that most relates. Take a look at the tips for working with such a student. Think of small ways in which you can adapt the environment for them. This book might be summed up by our hope that the readers will be able to notice their gifted and talented children and begin to meet their needs. There are many other resources that will further pedagogical practice. Ours is just a start.

• Learn more about Agell
• Watch a webinar about the book

Ed. Magazine

The magazine of the Harvard Graduate School of Education

Related Articles

Hollywood Never Stood a Chance

California Teacher of the Year on his journey

“Don’t Worry — You’ll Figure It Out”

Strong Voices in Teaching

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Neag School of Education

Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development

A practical system for identifying gifted and talented students, joseph s. renzulli, director the national research center on the gifted and talented university of connecticut.

This article presents the three-ring conception of giftedness. A detailed process is presented illustrating how students can be effectively screened for gifted and talented programs through the three-ring conception approach.

Key words: screening for gifted programs, gifted, talented, identification process

The system for identifying gifted and talented students described in this article is based on a broad range of research that has accumulated over the years on the characteristics of creative and productive individuals (Renzutli, 1986). Essentially, this research tells us that highly productive people are characterized by three interlocking clusters of ability, these clusters being above average (though not necessarily superior) ability, task commitment, and creativity. A graphic representation of this conception is presented in Figure 1. The following description of behavioral manifestations of each cluster is a summary of the major concepts and conclusions emanating from the work of theorists and researchers who have examined these concepts:

Well Above Average Ability

Adaptation to the shaping of novel situations encountered in the external environment.

The automatization of information processing; rapid accurate, and selective retrieval of information.

Specific Ability

The capacity for acquiring and making appropriate use of advanced amounts of formal knowledge, tacit knowledge, technique, logistics, and strategy in the pursuit of’ particular problems or the manifestation of specialized areas of performance.

The capacity to sort out relevant and irrelevant information associated with a particular problem or areas of study or performance.

Task Commitment

The capacity for perseverance. endurance. determination, hard work, and dedicated practice. Self-confidence. a strong ego and a belief in one’s ability to carry out important work, freedom from inferiority feelings, drive to achieve.

The ability to identify significant problems within specialized reason; the ability to tune in to major channels of communication and new developments within given fields. Setting high standards for one’s work; maintaining an openness to self and external criticism; developing an aesthetic sense of taste, quality, and excellence about one’s own work and the work of others.

Openness to experience; receptive to that which is new and different (even irrational) in thoughts, actions, and products of oneself and others.

Curious, speculative, adventurous, and “mentally playful” willing to take risks in thought and action, even to the point of being uninhibited. Sensitive to detail, aesthetic characteristics of ideas and things; willing to act on and react to external stimulation and one’s own ideas and feelings.

Figure 1. What makes giftedness?

As is always the case with lists of traits such as the above, there is an overlap among individual items, and an interaction between and among the general categories and the specific traits. It is important to point out that all the traits need not be present in any given individual or situation to produce a display of gifted behaviors. It is for this reason that the three ring conception of giftedness emphasizes the interaction among the clusters rather than any single cluster. It should also be emphasized that the above average ability cluster is a constant in the identification system described below. In other words, the well above average ability group represents the target population and the starting point for the identification process. and it will be students in this category that are selected through the use of test score and non-test criteria. Task commitment and creativity, on the other hand, are viewed as developmental goals of the special program. By providing above average ability students with appropriate experiences, the programming model (Renzulli. 1977) for which this identification system was designed serves the purpose of promoting creativity and task commitment, and in “bringing the rings together” to promote the development of gifted behaviors.

In the sections that follow, I will outline the specific steps of an identification system that is designed to translate the three-ring conception of giftedness into a practical set of procedures for selecting students for special programs. The focal point of this identification system is a Talent Pool of students that will serve as the major (but not the only) target group for participation in a wide variety of supplementary services. The goals of this identification system, as it relates to the three-ring conception of giftedness are threefold:

• To develop creativity and/or task commitment in Talent Pool students and other students who may come to our attention through alternate means of identification.
• To provide learning experiences and support systems that promote the interaction of creativity, task commitment, and above average ability (i.e., bring the “rings” together)
• To provide opportunities, resources, and encouragement for the development and application of gifted behaviors.

Before listing the steps involved in this identification system, three important considerations will be discussed. First, Talent Pools will vary in any given school depending upon the general nature of the total student body. In school with unusually large numbers of high ability students, it is conceivable that Talent Pools will extend beyond the 15 percent level that is ordinarily recommended in schools that reflect the achievement profiles of the general population. Even in schools where achievement levels are below national norms, there still exists an upper level group of students who need services above and beyond those which are provided for the majority of the school population. Some of our most successful programs have been in inner-city schools that serve disadvantaged and bilingual youth; and even though these schools were below national norms, a Talent Pool of approximately 15 percent of higher ability students needing supplementary services was still identified. Talent Pool size is also a function of the availability of resources (both human and material). and the extent to which the general faculty is willing (a) to make modifications in the regular curriculum for above average ability students, (b) to participate in various kinds of enrichment and mentoring activities, and (c) to work cooperatively with any and all personnel who may have special program assignments.

Since teacher nomination plays an important role in this identification system, a second consideration is the extent of orientation and training that teachers have had about both the program and procedures for nominating students. In this regard, we recommend the use of a training activity that is designed to orient teachers to the behavioral characteristics of superior students (Renzulli & Reis, pp. 203-2 10).

A third consideration is, of course. the type of program for which students are being identified. The identification system that follows is based on models that combine both enrichment and acceleration, whether or not they are carried out in self-contained or pull-out programs. Regardless of the type of organizational model used, it is also recommended that a strong component of curriculum compacting (Renzulli, Smith, & Reis, 1982) be a part of the services offered Talent Pool students.

For purpose of demonstration, the example that follows will be based oil the formation of a 15 percent Talent Pool. Larger or smaller Talent Pools can be formed by simply adjusting the figures used in this example.

Step 1: Test Score Nominations If we were using nothing but test scores to identify a 15 percent Talent Pool, the task would be ever so simple! Any child who scores above the 85th percentile (using local norms) would be a candidate. In this identification system, however, we have made a commitment to “leave some room” in the Talent Pool for students whose potentials may not be reflected in standardized tests. Therefore, we will begin by dividing our Talent Pool in half (see Figure 2), and we will place all students who score at or above the 92nd percentile (again, using local norms) in the Talent Pool. This approach guarantees that all traditionally bright youngsters will automatically be selected, and they will account for approximately 50 percent of our Talent Pool. This process guarantees admission to bright underachievers.

Figure 2. The Renzulli identification system

Any regularly administered standardized test (e.g., intelligence, achievement, aptitude) can be used for this purpose, however, we recommend that admission to the Talent Pool be granted on the basis of any single test or subtest score. This approach will enable students who are high in verbal or non-verbal ability (but not necessarily both) to gain admission, as well as students who may excel in one aptitude (e.g., spatial, mechanical). Programs that focus on special areas such as the arts, leadership, and athletics should use non-test criteria as major indicators of above ability in a particular talent area. In a similar fashion, whenever test scores are not available, or we have some question as to their validity, the non-test criteria recommended in the following steps should be used. This approach (i.e., the elimination or minimization of Step 1) is especially important when considering primary age students, disadvantaged populations, or culturally different groups.

Step 2: Teacher Nominations The teacher should be informed about all students who have gained entrance through test score nominations so that they will not have to engage in needless paperwork for students who have already been admitted. Step 2 allows teachers to nominate students who display characteristics that are not easily determined by tests (e.g., high levels of creativity, task commitment, unusual interest, talents. or special areas of superior performance of potential). With the exception of teachers who are over nominators or under nominators, nominations from teachers who have received training in this process are accepted into the Talent Pool on an equal value with test score nominations. That is, we do not refer to students nominated by test scores as the “truly gifted,” and the students nominated by teachers as the moderately or potentially gifted. Nor do we make any distinctions in the opportunities, resources, or services provided, other than the normal individualization that should be a part of any program that attempts to meet unique needs and potentials. Thus, for example, if a student gains entrance on the basis of teacher nomination because he or she has shown advanced potential for creative writing, we would not expect this student to compete on an equal basis in mathematics With a student who scored at or above the 92nd percentile on a math test. Nor should we arrange program experiences that Would place the student with talents in creative writing in an advanced math cluster group. Special programs should first and foremost respect and reflect the individual characteristics that brought students to our attention in the first place.

A teacher nomination form and rating scales (Renzulli, et al., 1976) are used for this procedure. The rating scales are not used to eliminate students with lower ratings. Instead, the scales are used to provide a composite profile of the nominated students. In cases of teachers who are over nominators, a request is made that they rank order their nominations for review by a schoolwide committee. Procedures for dealing with under-nominators or non-nominators will be described in Step 4.

Step 3: Alternate Pathways Whereas all schools using this identification system make use of test score and teacher nominations, alternate pathways are considered to be local options, and are pursued in varying degrees by individual school districts. Decisions about which alternative pathways might be used should be made by a local planning committee, and some consideration should be given to variations in grade level. For example, self-nomination is more appropriate for students who may be considering advanced classes at the secondary level.

Alternate pathways generally consist of parent nominations, peer nominations, tests of creativity, self-nominations, product evaluations and virtually any other procedure that might lead to initial consideration by a screening committee. The major difference between alternate pathways on one hand, and test score and teacher nomination on the other, is that alternate pathways are not automatic. In other words, students nominated through one or more alternate pathways will be reviewed by a screening committee, after which a selection decision will be made. In most cases the screening committee carries out a case study that includes examination of all previous school records, interviews with students, teachers, and parents, and the administration of individual assessments that may be recommended by the committee. In some cases, students that are recommended on the basis of one or more alternate pathways are placed in the program on a trial basis.

Step 4: Special Nominations (Safety Valve No. 1) Special nominations represent the first of two “safety valves” in this identification system. This procedure involves circulating a list of all students who have been nominated through one of the procedures in Steps 1 through 3 to all teachers within the school, and in previous schools if students have matriculated from another building. This procedure allows previous year teachers to nominate students who have not been recommended by their present teacher, and it also allows resource teachers to make recommendations based on their own previous experience with students who have already been in the Talent Pool, or students they may have encountered as part of enrichment experiences that might have been offered in regular classrooms. This step allows for a final review of the total school population, and is designed to circumvent the opinions of present year teachers who may not have an appreciation for the abilities, style, or even the personality of a particular student. One last “sweep” through the population also helps to pick up students that may have “turned-off” to school or developed patterns of underachievement as a result of personal or family problems. This step also helps to overcome the general biases of an under nominator or a non-nominator. As with the case of alternate pathways, special nominations are not automatic. Rather, a case study is carried out and the final decision rests with the screening committee.

Step 5: Notification and Orientation of Parents A letter of notification and a comprehensive description of the program is forwarded to the parents of all Talent Pool students indicating that their youngster has been placed in the Talent Pool for the year. The letter does not indicate that a child has been certified as “gifted,” but rather explains the nature of the program and extends an invitation to parents for an orientation meeting. At this meeting a description of the three-ring conception of giftedness is provided, as well as an explanation of all program policies, procedures, and activities. Parents are informed about how admission to the Talent Pool is determined, that it is carried out on an annual basis, and that additions to Talent Pool membership might take place during the year as a result of evaluations of student participation and progress. Parents are also invited to make individual appointments whenever they feel that additional information about the program in general, or their own child, is required. A similar orientation session is provided for students, with emphasis once again being placed on the services and activities being provided. Students are not told that they are “the gifted,” but through a discussion of the three-ring conception and the procedures for developing general and specific potentials, they come to understand that the development of gifted behaviors is a program goal as well as part of their own responsibility.

Step 6: Action Information Nominations (Safety Valve No. 2) In spite of our best efforts, this system will occasionally overlook students, who, for one reason or another, are not selected for Talent Pool membership. To help overcome this problem, orientation related to spotting unusually favorable “turn-ons” in the regular curriculum is provided for all teachers. In programs following the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 1983), we also provide a wide variety of in-class enrichment experiences that might result in recommendations for special services. This process is facilitated through the use of a teacher training activity and an instrument called an Action Information Message (Renzulli & Reis, 1985, pp. 41-42, 398-403).

Action information can best be defined as the dynamic interactions that occur when a student becomes extremely interested in or excited about a particular topic, area of study, issue, idea or event that takes place in school or the nonschool environment. It is derived from the concept of performance based assessment, and it serves as the second safety valve in this identification system. The transmission of an action information message does not mean that a student will automatically revolve into advanced level services, however, it serves as the basis for a careful review of the situation to determine if such services are warranted. Action information messages are also used within Talent Pool settings (i.e., pull-out groups, advanced classes, cluster groups) to make determinations about the pursuit of individual or small group investigations (Type III Enrichment in the Triad Model).

DISCUSSION In most identification systems that follow the traditional screening-plus-selection approach, the “throw aways” have invariably been those students who qualified for screening on the basis of nontest criteria. Thus, for example, a teacher nomination is only used as a ticket to take an individual or group ability test, but in most cases the test score is always the deciding factor. The many and various “good things” that led to nominations by teachers are totally ignored when it comes to the final (selection) decision, and the multiple criteria game ends up being a smoke screen for the same old test based approach.

The implementation of the identification system described above has helped to overcome this problem as well as a wide array of other problems traditionally associated with selecting students for special programs. Generally, students, parents, teachers, and administrators have expressed high degrees of satisfaction with this approach (Renzulli, 1988), and the reason for this satisfaction is plainly evident. By “picking up” that layer of students below the top few percentile levels usually selected for special programs, and by leaving some room in the program for students to gain entrance on the basis of nontest criteria, we have eliminated the justifiable criticisms of those persons who know that these students are in need of special opportunities, resources, and encouragement. The research underlying the three-ring conception of giftedness clearly tells us that such an approach is justified in terms of what we know about human potential. And by eliminating the endless number of “headaches” traditionally associated with identification, we have gained an unprecedented amount of support from teachers and administrators, many of whom, formerly resented the very existence of special programs.

The Achilles Heel of Change Even modest changes in the status quo inevitably raise concerns and questions on the parts of practitioners who might be affected by the proposed changes. One of the most frequently asked questions about the changes in identification procedures described above is: “How will this approach ‘square’ with state guidelines?” Before answering this question, I would like to point out that I have not expressed dissatisfaction with the restrictiveness of identification guidelines. The research cited above, and the contributions of leaders in the field such as Bloom (1985), Gardner (1983), Guilford (1977), Sternberg (1983). Treffinger (1982), and Torrance (1979) clearly point the need for a reexamination of the regulations under which most programs are forced to operate. This research is so supportive of a more flexible approach to identification that the rationale for change no longer needs to be argued. Guidelines should be our servants, not our masters. but if we are to gain more control over our own destiny, we must take concrete steps to bring existing guidelines into title with present day theory and research.

Fortunately, change is in the wind, and a bold new breed of leadership in gifted education is emerging in many state departments of education. These persons have been willing to reexamine present guidelines, and even in the absence of immediate changes, they have allowed for much more flexibility in the interpretation of existing regulations. Proposals that only a few years ago were being rejected because they did not meet strict cut-off score requirements. are now being accepted and even encouraged.

The Achilles Heel of change is not guidelines, but apathy. If we believe that more flexibility is desirable, we must mobilize professional personnel who have a stake in serving high potential youth. Principals, teachers, superintendents and pupil personnel specialists should be recruited for organized statewide efforts directed toward guidelines that are more responsive to contemporary research. Carefully selected research based documents should be brought to the attention of state boards of education and the education committee of the legislatures. Every effort should be made to develop reimbursement formulas that are based on total district enrollment rather than the number of students identified. It has been this “body count” approach that has forced schools to treat giftedness as an absolute State of being rather than a developmental concept, and the result has been the most rigid kinds of test score identification procedures. By getting rid of the body count approach to identification, we will allow districts greater flexibility in the types of identification and programming models they might want to consider (including test-based approaches), and we will provide greater equity for districts that serve disadvantaged and culturally diverse populations.

To be certain, there will be a little less tidiness in the identification process, but the trade off for tidiness and administrative expediency will result in many more flexible approaches to both identifying and serving young people with great potential. From a research perspective, new data will be yielded, and thus, new dialogue and controversy will emerge. This is indeed how science goes on forever, how new ideas and insights are realized, and how a field of study continues to improve and to revitalize itself.