2013-1

Social and Emotional Needs of Gifted Learners

Social and Emotional

TEMPOJournal of the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented • Member, National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)ISSN 2168-4731 (Print) • ISSN 2168-4774 (Online)

Vo l u m e XXXIV, I s s u e 1, 2013

“Thanks to the TAMS program at the University of North Texas, I’ve already worked in the lab of a leading scientist and used 3-D methods to examine metal matrix composites for use in the aerospace and automobile industries.”

— Darius simmonsTams sTuDenT researcher

UNT’s Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science — the nation’s first accelerated residential program for gifted teens who take university courses to complete their first two years of college while earning high school diplomas — has launched many promising research careers for exceptionally talented students like Darius Simmons.

Tams is helping me fasT-Track my Dream

of becoming an aerospace engineer.

shaping The fuTure of young researchers

AA/EOE/ADA © 2013 UNT

tams.unt.edu

“Thanks to the TAMS program at the University of North Texas, I’ve already worked in the lab of a leading scientist and used 3-D methods to examine metal matrix composites for use in the aerospace and automobile industries.”

— Darius simmonsTams sTuDenT researcher

UNT’s Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science — the nation’s first accelerated residential program for gifted teens who take university courses to complete their first two years of college while earning high school diplomas — has launched many promising research careers for exceptionally talented students like Darius Simmons.

Tams is helping me fasT-Track my Dream

of becoming an aerospace engineer.

shaping The fuTure of young researchers

AA/EOE/ADA © 2013 UNT

tams.unt.edu

Vo l u m e XXXIV, I s s u e 1, 2013

The Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (TAGT) is a nonprofit organization of parents and professionals promoting appropriate education for gifted and talented students in the state of Texas. TEMPO is the official journal of the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented. It is published four times a year. The subscription is a benefit for TAGT members. Material appearing in TEMPO may be reprinted unless otherwise noted. When copying an article please cite TEMPO and TAGT as the source. We appreciate copies of publications containing TEMPO reprints. Address correspondence concerning the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (including subscription questions) to TAGT, 1524 S. IH 35, Suite 205, Austin, Texas, 78704. Call TAGT at 512/499-8248, FAX 512/499-8264. ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED: Please notify TAGT if you are moving or if your mailing address has changed. TAGT publications are sent via third-class mail and are not forwarded by the post office. Be sure to renew your membership. You will not receive TAGT publications or mailings after your membership expiration date.

TEMPO EDITOR Krystal Goree, Ph.D.

DESIGN EDITOR Marjorie ParKer

COPY EDITOR jennifer robins, Ph.D.

TAGT PRESIDENT Marilyn swanson, Ph.D.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR jj Colburn

TEMPO

FEATURES

Retracing a Forgotten PathJim Delisle, Ph.D.

Axiomatic Social and Emotional Characteristics, Needs, and/or Issues Common to Secondary Aged Students with Gifts and Talents

Tracy L. Cross, Ph.D.

A Model for STEM Talent Development: Peer Coaching in the Elementary Classroom

Debbie Dailey, Alicia Cotabish, Ed.D., and Ann Robinson, Ph.D.

What the Research Says About the Emotional Needs of Gifted and Talented Students

Sonia L. Parker, Kari J. Hodge, and Susan K. Johnsen, Ph.D.

710

15

21

Opinions expressed by individual authors do not necessarily represent official positions of TAGT.

46

29

IN EVERY ISSUE

From the EditorKrystal Goree, Ph.D.

From the Executive DirectorJJ Colburn

C.P.’s CornerClyde Peterson

4 Tempo • Vol. XXXIV, No. 1, 2013

by Krystal Goree, Ph.D.

from the editor

I will never forget the first grader who looked up at me one day from his school desk and said, “You know, Mrs. Goree, when my heart hurts my head just won’t work.” I think we can all relate to this feeling, and I am quite sure that we can all share examples of experiences we have had with kids

in which social and emotional issues and needs have had a negative impact on academic performance. It is important that the affective domain be addressed with all children, including gifted children, if we want them to experience success and happiness. At the same time, we, as educators, are sometimes so focused on testing and how little time we have to cover the content for which we are responsible that we fail to take the time to really pay attention to the social and emotional needs of children with whom we interact. Children come to school with all kinds of burdens, worries, and challenges—many that we are never aware of and would not be able to relate to even if we were aware. Kids come to school late, they come to school without assignments completed, they do not pay attention to the very interesting content we present, and some are even dis-respectful and defensive when we try to help them. We all work with gifted kids who are “underachievers” or who have “bad attitudes.” This can be very frustrating, especially when we have worked so hard to plan lessons that cover the standards over which they will be tested. After all, if the students do not perform well on the tests, they will not move to the next grade or (at many schools) will be taken out of the gifted program. When I was an elementary school principal, I decided that I was going to ride every bus route to see where the children in my school lived. My observations as I rode the buses during the coldest time of the year provided an awak-ening experience for me. In fact, several of the instances I witnessed brought tears to my eyes. A very gifted fifth

grader was dropped off at a vacant lot on which there was parked a worn-out van that had electricity running to it. That was his home. Another very bright child got off the bus and I watched as she walked across a busy highway to an old trailer. Her brothers and sisters were huddled around a campfire with their grandmother who was stoking a fire in front of the trailer and wrapping each of the children in old, worn-out blankets, trying to keep them warm. Why do many children—even those who are so bright—struggle to reach their full potential in the edu-cational setting? We are fortunate to have researchers and authors in the field of gifted education whose focus and passion is to address this question. They provide insight and guidance to us as we strive to address the social and emotional needs of kids and, at the same time, provide challenging and rigorous academic learning experiences for them. In this issue of Tempo, Dr. Jim Delisle, as always, shares straight from his heart and pays tribute to Annemarie Roeper—an outstanding contributor in the field; Dr. Tracy Cross provides us with insight into the social and emotional needs and challenges of middle and high school gifted stu-dents; Deborah Dailey, Dr. Alicia Cotabish, and Dr. Ann Robinson share their findings from a study on co-teaching and STEM; and Dr. Susan Johnsen, Sonia Parker, and Kari Hodge contribute a review of the literature in their article, “What the Research Says About the Emotional Needs of Gifted Students.” We are blessed in the field of gifted education with passionate and dedicated educators, researchers, parents, and advocates. I am thankful that I have the opportunity to learn from and work with such people—those with whom I share the passion.

320 pointAverage

SAT Improvement!

Visit our booth at the TAGT Professional Development Conference! Booth 118

and HUB [email protected] (512) 961-8522 www.myknowsys.com

is a proud corporate partner of TAGT!

Over 150 Schools Nationwide rely on Knowsys to maximize student success.

Knowsys PartnersThe University of Texas at AustinK-16 Education Center Baylor Alumni Association

Division of Lifelong Learning

The University of Texas-Pan AmericanContinuing Education

The University of Houston-DowntownApplied Business and Techology Center

The Learning Center of North TexasHouston Project GRAD

Carol Frausto San Antonio ISD

Debbie MidkiffGrand Prairie ISD

Todd KettlerCoppell ISD

Marie MedinaMansfield ISD Margo Gigee

Pearland ISD


The start of the New Year is always an exciting time at TAGT. A new Board begins service with an orientation and review of the association’s strategic plan. Volunteer leaders are again able to share their passion, insight, and gifts by serving on TAGT committees. And the

Texas 83rd Legislative Session provides opportunities for members to promote awareness of the issues in our field with policy makers and the public. But, perhaps the most exciting thing to happen in the spring is the annual renewal of the TAGT Scholarship Program. Since 1982, TAGT has awarded more than $1 million in scholarships to gifted students in Texas, enabling and supporting their pursuit of summer enrichment oppor-tunities and postsecondary efforts. TAGT members and supporters can and should take great pride in this import-ant association program that gets to the heart of who we are as an organization—supporting kids and their continued development.

TOP THREE WAYS YOU CAN GET INVOLVED WITH THE TAGT SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

1. MAKE A DONATION TAGT scholarships are fully funded by charitable donations, most of which are made by individual mem-bers and supporters. All donations are tax-deductible, as TAGT is a 501(C)3 organization. TAGT awards $25,000 in scholarships each year and we need your support to keep up this rate of giving. TAGT’s operations are funded through revenue sources such as membership dues and conference

participation, which allows 100% of your donation to be designated directly to student scholarships.

2. SPREAD THE WORD Do you know of deserving students? Help spread the word about TAGT summer enrichment and college scholar-ships which are available only to students identified as G/T and sponsored by a TAGT Professional or Parent member. Summer scholarships are available to students in grades K–12 to assist in attending and camp with academic, artis-tic or leadership focus, including two scholarships to attend the Summer Mathematics Institute sponsored by the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science. Additionally, two scholarships are available to graduating seniors for post-secondary pursuits. More information about scholarships, including the application process, is available online at www.txgifted.org.

3. PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS Be inspired by the aspirations of our G/T students and serve your association at the same time. TAGT seeks volunteers to review and score scholarship applications each spring. To volunteer, contact Tracy Weinberg ([email protected]).

The TAGT Scholarship Program is a vital part of our efforts to serve students directly. Don’t miss the opportu-nity to support the important philanthropic work of your association. Contribute your time, talent, or funds today to make a difference in the lives of our future leaders, inven-tors, artists, and citizens!

from the eXecutIVe dIrector

by JJ Colburn

teXas assocIatIoN for the GIfted aNd taleNted 7

Although gifted children’s emotions and intellects are different, they are not necessarily more advanced. These

characteristics can only be understood if they are examined as a unit, for gift-edness cannot be defined in separate categories such as intellectual gifted-ness, creative giftedness, or physical giftedness. These categories always act upon one another, although some may be more apparent in some individuals than others. In short, giftedness entails a greater degree of awareness and sensitivity and a greater ability to understand and transform perceptions into intellectual and emotional experiences [italics added] (Roeper, 1982, p. 21). On May 11, 2012, the world became a bit dimmer with the death of Annemarie Roeper. Annemarie, a pio-neer in the field of gifted child education (gce) for more than 60 years, brought a sensitivity to this often overly-academic field of study by insisting, decade after decade, that gifted children and adults be recognized for both their minds and their hearts. She refused to accept that academic abilities and accomplishments alone define a gifted individual and, in the preface to her book, Annemarie

Roeper: Selected Writings and Speeches (1995), she articulated her vision thusly: “This book represents different aspects of my love for and devotion to the soul of the human being, and my belief in the tenderness with which the soul needs to be nurtured in the context of sensitive global awareness” (p. 1). Annemarie was something to every-one she met, but to those of us who knew her well, she was everything. A Holocaust survivor, she and her husband George established the Roeper School in Michigan in 1941; it still exists today as a safe and meaningful place for more than 600 gifted children. In addition to being headmistress of Roeper’s Lower School, Annemarie helped in designing the grant that initially funded Sesame Street; she was Anna Freud’s youngest doctoral student of psychoanalysis ever, accepted into practice with her at the age of 19, a degree she never completed due to the Nazi invasion of Austria; and she continued to serve gifted young children and their families well into her 80s, devising a qualitative assessment method as an alternative to the IQ test that is described in her 2007 book, The “I” of the Beholder: A Guided Journey to the Essence of a Child. Yet, as I came to find in my 30+ years relationship with Annemarie,

Jim Delisle, Ph.D.


these accomplishments tell only part of her biography. For me, it was the quiet interactions we shared at NAGC conferences and on the porch of her California retirement home that led me to call her my “gifted grand-mother,” a wise and warm elder whose unconditional love transcended time and distance. It was the calm manner in which she soothed even the most volatile child by listening to her, not talking at her. And it was the tenderest moment of all, at a memorial service for her husband George, who died in 1992. On a sun-drenched September morning, Annemarie addressed hun-dreds of us as she spoke of her husband of 53 years. She ended her tribute to him by saying that, today, she had to do the hardest thing she had ever done: She had to let George go. Annemarie Roeper, this remark-able educator, wife, mother, and trans-formative thinker, inspired me more than anyone else I have ever met in my professional career. But not having her bravery, I cannot let her go just yet—not until I fulfill a promise that I made to her in some of our last con-versations: that I would continue to promote her view of the gifted child as a complex blend of intellect, emo-tion, and creativity, each part equal in importance to the others. A view of the gifted child that, sadly, is lacking in today’s national conversations about the essence of giftedness.

ON NEGLECTING THE OBVIOUS

I was on a field trip with my gifted seventh graders a few years back. We were exploring an historic cemetery in which John D. Rockefeller, James A. Garfield, and Eliot Ness were among the 110,000 “residents.” A place of beauty and poignancy, this cemetery also contained more than 500 species of trees and a Tiffany-designed chapel. My students were in awe that a place

to preserve the dead also celebrated the living so beautifully. At lunchtime, 12-year-old Zach excused himself from the group to eat lunch behind a tree large enough to hide his body. When I went to check on Zach, he was sobbing into his hands, his lunch uneaten. Worried that this cemetery visit had prompted in him some sad feelings of personal loss, I asked Zach to help me under-stand the source of his tears. Through his deep, soggy breaths, he told me not a story of loss, but of existence: “This cemetery is beautiful, yet everyone in it is dead. I’m gonna die . . . you’re gonna die . . . my parents are gonna die . . . so what’s the point?” How does one answer Zach’s psy-chic pain? What does one say to relieve the fear of uncertain inevitability that he is questioning? How does one give reassurance that “everything will be OK” when that is more platitude than truth? I knew one person who could help—Annemarie Roeper. Upon returning to school, I shared with Zach the definition of giftedness that graces the opening paragraph of this article. With a knowing nod of self-recognition, Zach looked up at me and stated, simply and assuredly, “this sounds like me.” I relate this incident as a para-ble—a short allegory designed to illus-trate some particular truth. The truth, in this case, being the importance of the emotional components of growing up gifted. But sadly, in today’s schools and curricula, the importance of this elemental form of self-knowledge is (take your pick) neglected, ignored, or dismissed as something beyond the purview of school. Gifted child educators (and their regular education counterparts) are told to concentrate on academics alone—particularly math and reading—as those are the skills needed for students to master the complexity of the 21st century. I will not argue that the abilities to read and compute are unimport-

ant, but I will argue that they are incomplete when it comes to anyone’s education, especially the education of highly-capable children who may have already mastered the skills that their teachers feel compelled to “teach” them. As early as 1942, gifted leg-end Leta Hollingworth outlined five areas of emotional concern that, if left unaddressed, “may lead to habits subversive of fine leadership” (p. 299). These areas include:

1. to find enough hard and interest-ing work at school,

2. to suffer fools gladly,3. to keep from becoming negativis-

tic towards authority,4. to keep from becoming hermits,

and5. to avoid the formation of habits of

extreme chicanery. Perhaps some of Hollingworth’s specific language is archaic—but her ideas are as current and important today as ever. Ironically, in this era of making sure that our students are gaining “21st century skills” and are “college and career ready” upon high school graduation, I feel more pessi-mistic than ever about the forward momentum of our field, and of edu-cation in general. We seem to care so much about readily-measurable out-comes that we forget the importance of those qualities that are impossible to document through traditional assess-ment tools. How does one measure the contours of one’s heart, the generos-ity of one’s spirit, or the amount of empathy that one carries into human interactions? These attributes are vital to all human beings, yet for the gifted children who have an abundance of emotional intensity that interweaves with their intellectual prowess, these are essential life skills. When a 6-year old gifted boy cries upon hearing about the clash between Muslims and Christians; when the 11-year old gifted girl feels isolated from her class-mates because they don’t seem to care about our planet’s health; or when a


16-year-old gifted teen turns bitter towards an adolescent society that cares more about their hair than their brains, where do these young people go for comfort? Release? Answers? It used to be a gifted classroom environ-ment that provided a haven of solace to review these concerns. But today, in too many instances, such questions are deemed peripheral to 21st century skills acquisition. Who do I blame for this seismic shift in the focus of gce in our schools? Perhaps there are numerous contribu-tors, but the most unexpected one may be found in our own backyard: some leaders of our field who have decided that giftedness = high achievement. Period. Beginning in the late 1970s, when the notion of giftedness being a behavior rather than a state of being was espoused (Renzulli, 1978) and culmi-nating (to date) with a shift in the definition of giftedness to focus almost exclusively on high achievement in a specific domain (e.g., math, music, soccer; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2011), our field has been diminished by the notion that giftedness is “something you do” as opposed to being “someone you are.” As I wrote in a recent article, “in this new world of domain-specific giftedness, people are gifted only part of the time—the times when they are ‘acting that way’” (Delisle, 2012). My bias is obvious, but I am not ashamed of that, for the roots of this bias run both deep and long. My views of gifted children are sup-ported by the groundbreaking work of individuals like Leta Hollingworth, Annemarie Roeper, John Gowan, T. Ernest Newland, and Virgil Ward, all of whom dropped their anchors into the sea of giftedness as being a perva-sive quality in those who possess it. None of these individuals was guided by political expediency or correctness, nor were they afraid of being seen as elitist because they believed that gift-edness was a bastion of the few, not the many. In today’s world, giftedness is sometimes seen as a commodity to

be exploited rather than a set of per-sonal traits to be cherished. In these cases we have lost touch with the very reason our field came to exist in the first place: to nurture both the minds and the hearts of our world’s most stunningly-competent and sensitive children. It’s been 33 years since I entered this gce field. In those decades, I have come to know hundreds of gifted chil-dren, teens and adults. Individually

and collectively, they have taught me many unforgettable lessons. But if I had to select the lesson that is most vivid in my memory and has guided my thinking and writing, it is this: “Being smart” is a very small part of growing up gifted. Those unmeasured, essential attributes that exist under the umbrella of “social and emotional growth” are the components that allow gifted children to uncover all their hidden parts that, once revealed, will make them whole. My journey on Annemarie Roeper’s behalf is not yet finished. In fact, this trek may be more circular than linear, often repeating her ideals to those who enter the gce field from another place, a different arena. My fondest wish is that you will take the time to explore the world of giftedness through the lens I present in this arti-cle and, should you find yourself in agreement with my views, to espouse them openly and mightily to others

who need to hear them. Our gifted children can succeed in ways both obvious and subtle, but they need informed and ardent advocates to help them to do so. Advocates like you.

REFERENCESDelisle, J. (2012). A defining moment.

Retrieved from http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/defining_moment.htm

Hollingworth, L. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and development. New York, NY: World Book Company.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2011). Taking a bold step. Compass Points, 4(11), 1–2.

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes gifted-ness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261.

Roeper, A. (1982). How the gifted cope with their emotions. Roeper Review, 5(2), 21.

Roeper, A. (1995). Annemarie Roeper: Selected writings and speeches. Min-neapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

Roeper, A. (2007). The ‘I’ of the beholder: A guided journey to the essence of a child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Jim Delisle has been an advocate for gifted chil-dren and those who work on their behalf for more than 30 years. His books include The Gifted Teen Survival Guide, 4th edition (with Judy Galbraith), Building Strong Writers in Middle School (with Deb Delisle), and Parenting Gifted Kids. Jim may be reached at [email protected]

We seem to care so much about readily-measurable outcomes that we forget the importance of those qualities that are impossible to document through traditional assessment tools.


Tracy L. Cross, Ph.D.

Common to

Secondary Aged

Students With

Gifts and Talents

In this article I describe several of the axiomatic social

and emotional characteristics, needs, and/or issues that are

common to secondary aged students with gifts and talents

(SWGT). Some emanate from the characteristics of the

SWGT (endogenous), while others emerge from the inter-

action of the student’s characteristics within their context

(exogenous). By focusing on secondary aged students, more detail can

be provided to elucidate nuance. More specifically, I discuss: (a) asyn-

chronous development, (b) multi-potentiality, (c) college/career coun-

seling, (d) stigma of giftedness, and (e) anti-intellectualism. The five

examples range from those that are endogenous and shift increasingly

to exogenous.


ASYNCHRONOUS DEVELOPMENT (AD)

We begin with asynchronous devel-opment. Asynchronous development is the disparity between a SWGT ‘s great-est area of potential and/or achievement and other areas of development. It can be argued that all SWGT experience asynchronous development. Some have argued that asynchronous devel-opment should be a definition of gift-edness (Silverman, 1993). For example, think of a 7-year-old-boy who has a measured IQ of 145 (three stan-dard deviations above the mean), whose social development is in the average range for 7-year-olds. There are endogenous issues the child will deal with that can range from academic frustrations to exogenous issues that emerge from the interaction of the asyn-chronous development and the context. I worked with a 7-year-old who was placed in fifth grade. He proved to be the top student in most of his classes. Late in the academic year I was called to a meeting wherein a team of teach-ers was considering returning the student to second grade. The student was seemingly thriving in all aspects of his school day except for gym. During gym he acted like a typical 7-year-old. His classmates and teacher expected him to behave like a 12-year-old. This example of asynchro-nous development threatened to ruin his appropriate placement, because adults expected him to be at the same level of development across all areas.

A second example that is endog-enous by nature is the frustration of a young, highly gifted math student, who is in the average range in lan-guage arts. The experience of working at vastly differing levels can be frustrat-ing. Imagine doing Algebra II at age 6 but reading Fun With Dick and Jane. It is my contention that gifted children realize what they can do early in their lives and, later, come to realize what

others cannot do. As the child grows, the interaction between these two areas (complicated mathematical word-based problems) wherein the child’s abilities range so widely, can exasperate the child and affect his or her development.

MULTI-POTENTIALITY (MP)MP is having more than one area

in which one has great potential. It can manifest within talent domains such as academics, athletics, music, and so forth. It can also manifest

across domains such as intellectual ability and social and emotional devel-opment. There is no limitation to the possible combinations. For example, some SWGT show great promise in numerous domains. One reason for this fact is that many domains overlap with others or have facets that under-pin more than one domain.

A broad way of thinking about multi-potentiality is to imagine any two areas of human endeavor in which a person can develop and combine them. MP is so common that we often look past examples, or take for granted that it is always there among SWGT. Of course it is not always present, but it is common. A common example is SWGT who are exceptional in both mathematics and music.

Why care if SWGT manifest

multi-potentiality? Perhaps the only general reason is that for people to reach their potential, they have to spend considerable time (10,000 hours or more) practicing to reach the expert level of performance. And once a gifted student reaches secondary school, time is already being spent in one or more of the talent domains in question. So, regardless of any other factor, the mere need to decide which domain to pursue exists. There are myriad influ-ences that can make the issue of multi- potentiality more or less difficult for

the SWGT. For example, attend-ing a school that does not offer study in one’s area of talent can impede a student’s opportunities for development. This is com-mon for students who attend very small rural schools. The opposite can also exacerbate the situation. For example, a SWGT might attend a school that offers opportunities in all of a student’s elevated talent domains. By late high school, spreading one’s time equally across multiple domains may not allow for reaching one’s potential. It also can cause con-siderable stress, lack of sleep, and ongoing fatigue.

A very practical concern for SWGT who have multi-potentialities is school schedules. Quite often activ-ities occur after school. Consequently these activities compete with band, clubs, and so forth. In the early sec-ondary grades, the negative impact on development of foundational skills would be difficult to make up later (Coleman & Cross, 2005).

Yet another factor influencing MP in SWGT is our tendency to keep stu-dents together by age grouping. By middle school some flexibility emerges, but far too little to be adequate for the task of maximizing potential. This is true for both academics and athlet-ics. For example, in schools serving grades 9–12, ninth graders will often get a chance to try to make the varsity team in sports. If they can operate at

A very practical concern for

students with gifts and talents

who have multi-potentialitiesis school schedules.


the level of their older peers, they are placed appropriately with the varsity. Typically, a single coach can make that assessment. Now let us juxtapose that with academic talent in math. Should a ninth grader show the ability to be successful in AP BC calculus, or said differently, placed appropriately in AP BC calculus, one person can prevent it, but several will have to support the placement for it to occur. Any chance for this to happen often depends on a champion (often a middle or early high school math teacher), parents, school counselor, advanced math teacher, and principal. Quite often

any of these adults can veto this effort.Even with all of these difficulties,

the potential benefits of multi-potenti-alities are so great for the development and quality of life of the individual SWGT that it is well worth the effort to help the student work through them. Having one talent domain informing another of equal development is quite rare and limited to SWGT and their adult counterparts. Consider how art, music, math, science, and sports can be informed by great expertise in the other domain. Leonardo da Vinci was renowned for his myriad talents that were informed by other talent domains.

COLLEGE/CAREER COUNSELING (CCC)

College/career counseling is the natural topic to follow multi-potential-ity as the two are inextricably combined in the lives of SWGT. Providing effec-tive CCC is complicated, requiring the counselor to have extensive amounts

of knowledge of colleges and universi-ties, financial aid, and the nature and meaning of myriad standardized tests. Additionally, the counselor needs to understand individual students’ needs, wishes, strength areas, and areas of weakness. This represents a minimal level of knowledge required. Engaging the student and working effectively with hundreds of parents and guard-ians is also necessary. The counselor must also have the time needed to do a good job of advising.

Ideally the counselor would also have considerable knowledge about the multi-potentiality of the SWGT

as they interface with the curricular options available for the student. This includes opportunities such as dis-tance learning, early college, special schools, AP courses, and International Baccalaureate programs.

Assuming that all of these factors are in place, what are some of the issues that are relatively common to SWGT? Context, culture, gender poli-tics, family preferences, time in history, opportunities available, region, level of domain potential, racism, sexism, favored disciplines, school leaders, and so forth. Given the vast array of cat-egories from where factors and influ-ences appear, I will discuss several of the most important influences.

Imagine providing CCC in 1693 in the region known today as the United States. There are only two col-leges from which to choose: Harvard and The College of William and Mary. There are few students to consider and much formal education ends in the early grades. There are no assessments to help you, and little desire for your

services. Fast forward to 2012. The U.S. has grown from a few hundred thou-sand people to 320 million inhabitants. There are more than 4,000 colleges and universities, U.S. citizens from across the world speaking virtually every lan-guage, considerable pressure from some families to get their children in a lim-ited number of universities, and some families spending thousands of dollars just to help their child do well on one college test (e.g., SAT). Ninety percent of the high school counselor’s time will be tied up with 10% of the students. College costs are spiraling out of con-trol and states are greatly reducing their support of underwriting the costs of state universities. This adds consider-able pressure to counselors to help stu-dents apply to increasing numbers of colleges and universities and apply for myriad scholarship opportunities. Each application requires letters of recom-mendations from teachers, administra-tors, and counselors. The counselors are ultimately responsible for each student in their average caseload of approxi-mately 400 students.

This juxtaposition reveals several of the salient factors that are histor-ically relevant. It only scratches the surface, however. Perhaps one of the most important elements of today’s college/career counseling practice is best revealed in the enormous college admission complex that has formed over the past 40 years or so. There are independent CCC specializing in get-ting SWGT into the “best” colleges and universities. There are innumer-able programs to help students raise their college admission test scores. And all this is against the backdrop of legacy admits and those who are admitted because they are “more inter-esting” than other students. In short, SWGT lives are often made very com-plicated by myriad forces and CCC is where many of them intersect.

STIGMA OF GIFTEDNESSColeman (1985) introduced the idea

In short, students with gifts and talents’ lives are often made very

complicated by myriad forces, and college/career counseling is where

many of them intersect.


that some students with gifts and talents are affected by a stigma of giftedness. His idea was based on Irving Goffman’s (1963) stigma theory. Research was con-ducted investigating a proposed Stigma of Giftedness Paradigm (SGP; Coleman & Cross, 1988; Cross, Coleman, & Terhaar-Yonkers, 1991). The SGP has three tenets:

1. Gifted students want to have nor-mal social interactions. Normal social interactions are idiosyn-cratic. There is no norm here. What each individual SWGT desires is normal.

2. Gifted students learn that when others find out they are gifted, they will treat gifted students differently. This idea can gener-alize to other topics. For example, when others learn that a SWGT is gay, a Dallas Cowboy fan, a dem-ocrat, a hockey player, Jewish, or learning disabled (or any number of other possibilities), it will influ-ence how they treat the SWGT.

3. Gifted students learn how to man-age information about themselves in order to maintain social lati-tude. Many families teach their children to behave differently in different situations. For example, we teach children that there are appropriate ways to behave in school, in church, at ballgames, and so forth. Part of behaving appropriately includes what to reveal and what not to reveal. SWGT learn that they can apply these rules to the social environ-ment of school.

In addition to the SGP, Coleman and Cross (1988) developed an Information Management Model (IMM) that illustrates the social cog-nition of SWGT especially as it per-tains to Stigma of Giftedness.

As shown in Figure 1, the IMM begins with a gifted child entering a new environment. Students with gifts and talents ascertain that the environment holds expectations of

them. They face the basic question about whether they feel the same as or different from other nongifted students. The SWGT in our studies have reported that approximately 85% do feel different. We also asked them whether they have social coping strat-egies. Once again, approximately 85% of the 85% say they do have coping strategies. The large majority of gifted students described social goals that we placed on a Continuum of Visibility (Coleman & Cross, 1988). The three major goals on the continuum were: Standing Out, Invisibility, and Disidentification. SWGT whose goal is to stand out seek to cope with being gifted by standing out, or by draw-ing attention to oneself. The goal is to become known as a gifted student, brainiac, nerd, or so forth. This is a very small group that we estimated to be about 4–5% of the total group.

The primary goal for the Invisibility construct is to blend in, not to stand out. Approximately 70% of the SWGT aspired to this goal. The SWGT described numer-

ous approaches to becoming invisible within their schools.

The most extreme position on the continuum of visibility was labeled as Disidentification. This group is not satisfied with blending in or not standing out, they want to be associ-ated with groups of students in their school who are thought to be made up of nongifted students. Each of these positions on the continuum has social coping strategies associated with them.

ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM (AI)Many of our SWGT go to school

in anti-intellectual environments. These environments are not neutral or encouraging of intellectually gifted students. Some have argued that the United States is anti-intellectual by nature (Howley, Howley, & Pendarvis, 1995). Our recent political debates have revealed incredibly high levels of suspi-cion of science among 40% to 50% of our adult population. Scientific issues that have been agreed upon by scientists across the world have been dismissed as mere conjecture. Historically validated

Figure 1. Information Management Model (IMM). From “Is Being Gifted a Social Handicap?,” by L. J. Coleman and T. Cross, 1998, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, p. 44


data have been dismissed and replaced with politically and religiously moti-vated anti-intellectual explanations. One of the last Republican candidates left in the primary claimed that encour-aging a college education is “snobbery.” How might this year-long political climate of anti-intellectual rhetoric affect our SWGT? Combined with an AI school environment, it makes it far less likely that SWGT will want to pursue scientific careers. Why would they want to pursue science or math-ematics if half of the adult population does not believe in evolution or climate change, or do believe that the earth is only 4,000 to 9,000 years old despite all of the scientific evidence to the con-trary? Although these beliefs must be cultivated for years, it is clear that the schools are not the primary location for the messages. This suggests that the messages that have run counter to sci-ence have come from homes, churches, and political leaders.

When a school’s environment is anti-intellectual, it is not limited to one academic domain. It is general. Anti-intellectual school environments have few academics for SWGT to model themselves after. This is how schools support the anti-science com-munity. SWGT exist in some cases as individuals interested in academic things within a sea of other ways of understanding the world and other values being touted as truth.

It has been noted that many of our most talented math and science students have avoided STEM fields in favor of working on Wall Street. Taking one’s talents to a field that is revered by society is easy to understand, espe-cially when other options are regularly refuted and made fun of as unimport-ant or impossible. Learning that the United States is the only country refus-ing to acknowledge man’s influence on climate change and that we have a stake in trying to fix the problems for SWGT is strong encouragement to look elsewhere for an occupation.

SUMMARY

Elaborating these particular axi-omatic examples of social and emo-tional issues, needs, and characteristics of SWGT (asynchronous development, multi-potentiality, college/career counseling, stigma of giftedness, and anti-intellectualism) illustrates the difficulty of growing up gifted in the

United States. It portrays their lives as developing with mixed messages, schools practices, and policies that are antiquated and counter to their devel-opment, facing multifaceted decisions about college and careers choices, while at the same time feeling stigmatized by their giftedness. All these experiences happen within anti-intellectual envi-ronments, making the lives of SWGT complicated and often quite difficult. They expend unnecessary energy on hiding or disassociating with other SWGT. They are subject to gender bias, and currently are being taught that sci-ence is not valued by half of our society. Our challenge is to support SWGT as they pursue their passions and learn how to effectively cope with the myriad social and emotional issues that they must navigate.

REFERENCESColeman, L. J. (1985). Schooling the gifted.

Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (1988). Is

being gifted a social handicap? Jour-nal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 41–56.

Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance, and teach-ing (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Ter-haar-Yonkers, M. (1991). The social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 44–55.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Howley, C., Howley, A., & Pendarvis, E. (1995). Out of our minds: Anti-intel-lectualism and talent development in American schooling. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Silverman, L. (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love.

Tracy L. Cross, Ph.D., holds an endowed chair, Jody and Layton Smith Professor of Psychology and Gifted Education, and is the Executive Director of the Center for Gifted Education at The College of William and Mary. He serves as President-Elect of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC). Previously he served Ball State University as the George and Frances Ball Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Gifted Studies, the founder and Executive Director of both the Center for Gifted Studies and Talent Development and the Institute for Research on the Psychology of the Gifted Students. He has published more than 150 arti-cles, book chapters, and columns; more than 200 presentations at conferences; and published four books. He has edited five journals in the field of gifted studies (Gifted Child Quarterly, Roeper Review, Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, Research Briefs) and is the current editor of the Journal for the Education of the Gifted. He received the Distinguished Service Award from The Association for the Gifted (TAG) and the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), the Early Leader and Early Scholar Awards from NAGC, and in 2009 was given the Lifetime Achievement Award from the MENSA Education and Research Foundation.

Taking one’s talents to a field that is

revered by society is easy to understand,

especially when other options are regularly refuted and made fun of as unimportant or

impossible.


In a rural schoolroom full of third-

grade students wearing neon-colored

goggles and lab aprons, students are filled

with excitement as they wait with anticipa-

tion for the next science activity. The regu-

lar classroom teacher and a peer coach, an

expert in science, pass out lab materials. Students

imagine putting on their scientist thinking caps

to contemplate what a scientist does. Lively stu-

dent responses to the question include: observa-

tion, discovery, DNA collection and analysis, and

the recreating of dinosaurs. Students are asked to

review their five senses and use them in the upcom-

ing activity to determine if a number of mystery

canisters are filled with a solid, a liquid, or a gas

and whether each consists of matter. The teacher

states that “matter is anything that has mass and

takes up space.” The peer coach chimes in and asks

students to recall the experiment from the previous

year when they weighed a balloon with air as well

as a balloon without air to see if air has mass. The

class discussion continues as the peer coach clarifies

the concept of matter for students and then tag-

teams with the classroom teacher to deliver this

well-orchestrated science lesson. Combined with a

national-award-winning William and Mary science

curriculum, biographies of scientists, science lab

kits, expert peer coaching, and intensive teacher

professional development focused on science, this

classroom is one of 60 participating in STEM

Starters, a federally-funded Jacob K. Javits proj-

ect. The project components, goals, objectives, and

activities focused on increased science learning for

all students in grades 2–5, and increased knowledge

and skills in gifted education and in the STEM

disciplines for their educators. STEM Starters is a

model for systematically developing STEM talents

in young children. A unique feature of STEM Starters is the use

of one-to-one peer coaching to deliver embedded

professional development focused on science. The

configuration of pairing a generalist or gifted

teacher and a science expert is uncommon in

most elementary schools in the nation; however,

results indicated that the STEM Starters approach

to increasing science teacher content knowledge


and student achievement in science works (Cotabish, Dailey, Hughes, & Robinson, 2011; Cotabish, Dailey, Robinson, & Hughes, in press). With the need for increased hands-on STEM education in the elementary grades (National Science Board, 2010), and the lack of science expertise among elementary educators (Coates, 2006; Fulp, 2002), the marriage between peer coaching and STEM makes sense.

WHAT IS PEER COACHING?Peer coaching is a professional

development component that allows teachers to receive in-classroom support while implementing recently learned instructional strategies and a new curriculum (Little, 2005; Robbins, 1991; Showers & Joyce, 1996). Furthermore, Little (2005) indicated peer coaching encourages teacher collaboration through a sharing of teaching and planning responsibilities. In addition, Chase and Wolfe (1989) indicated peer coaching allows teachers to experiment with new ideas in their own classroom without a fear of failure.

Benefits of Peer Coaching Peer coaching has been found to affect knowledge gained, instructional practice, attitude, and behavior among teachers. For example, after participation in a peer coaching program, Slater and Simmons (2001) found increased collaboration among teachers and a greater eagerness to implement new instructional strategies. To achieve the optimal benefits from peer coaching, researchers indicated that implementation requires planning,

time, and effort (Cotabish & Robinson, 2012; Jenkins, Garn, & Jenkins, 2005; Jenkins & Veal, 2002). Nevertheless, the researchers found the benefits of peer coaching outweighed the time and effort invested in the program. The ability to transfer learning to the classroom can be greatly enhanced by a peer coaching or mentoring experience. In a study by Showers (1982) to determine the effect of peer coaching on the transfer

of training, 17 middle school and junior high teachers were trained in three models of teaching frequently implemented in gifted programs (Bruner’s Concept Attainment, Taba’s Inductive Thinking, and Gordon’s Synectics). All teachers attended 21 hours of initial skills training on the teaching models. At the conclusion of the initial training, half of the teachers were randomly assigned to receive the coaching treatment while the remaining teachers were observed but not coached. Showers reported the coached group continued to use the teaching models up to 3 months past the initial training, whereas the noncoached group discontinued use of the new teaching models. This study revealed that coaching was a statistically significant predictor of the teachers’ ability to transfer training to the classroom.

Roles and Characteristics of Coaches

The traditional goal of peer coaching is to provide positive feedback to instructors (Slater & Simmons, 2001); however, more recently the peer coach has assumed a

greater responsibility. The coach may take on the roles of content expert, classroom helper, teacher observer, and, at times, instructional facilitator (Appleton, 2008). The coach needs to provide expert advice on content and pedagogical knowledge as well as be available to model and facilitate classroom lessons. Studies indicated teachers attributed their increased knowledge and skills to observing and talking to their coach (Gustafson, Guilbert, & MacDonald, 2002) and to the classroom support provided by their coach (Appleton, 2008). In addition, researchers recommended collegial rapport be established early in the peer coaching relationship to enable sharing and collaborative learning (Latz, Speirs Neumeister, Adams, & Pierce, 2009).

PEER COACHING IN SCIENCE

In a review of the literature, Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, and Birman (2002) found professional development focused on specific mathematics and science content and pedagogy of vital importance for educators in order to improve students’ conceptual understanding. A recent mentoring study, involving two middle school science teachers and a university professor, reported that after peer coaching, teachers had not become experts in science content, but could access the information needed for their lessons (Appleton, 2008). Initially, teachers received 2 days of training on the science curriculum followed by a mentoring program provided by the university professor. The mentor provided support by modeling instruction, facilitating classroom discussion, and cooperatively planning the science lesson with the teacher. Both teachers reported the mentoring program significantly changed their science teaching practices. The teachers indicated the mentor’s presence gave them the confidence to lead students

Peer coaching has been found to affect knowledge gained, instructional

practice, attitude, and behavior among teachers.


in exploratory and self-discovery activities. To generate teacher change, Appleton (2008) concluded the focus on peer coaching in science needs to be on classroom support to enhance pedagogical content knowledge. Providing support to teachers is essential in an elementary classroom where science materials and content knowledge are limited.

STEM STARTERS PEER COACHING MODEL

STEM Starters utilized a combination of summer institutes and peer coaching sustained over a 2-year period. The use of peer coaching rather than institute training alone was a key feature of the STEM Starters professional development model. Elementary teachers and gifted and talented teachers participated in 2-week summer institutes focused on science content and delivery, specific curriculum units, technological applications, and differentiation of instruction. Summer institutes provided 60 hours of training necessary for the implementation of the science curriculum units. Training involved teachers taking on the role of students to better understand how to implement the curriculum units. An expert science instructor

guided teachers through problem-based learning units by modeling effective science instruction for high-ability learners. Emphasis was placed on overarching concepts, higher order thinking skills, inquiry-based instruction, experimental design, and the use of technology as recommended by VanTassel-Baska (1998).

In addition, STEM Starters provided 60 hours of peer coaching across 2 years. The peer coach was a former secondary chemistry/physics teacher as well as a gifted and talented teacher. Once school began, the peer coach was in each of the schools two to three times per week. She visited each class at least twice a month to provide support for the teacher. In the classroom, the peer coach spent about 25% of her time as the classroom instructional leader while modeling the lesson for the teacher. For the remainder of the in-class time, the peer coach assisted the teacher with instruction and monitored and encouraged student participation. Outside of the classroom, the peer coach made certain all necessary science activity materials were in the schools and maintained contact with all teachers by phone or email to ensure their needs were being met. Overall, STEM Starters provided teachers with 120 hours of professional development across 2 years. Table 1

outlines the professional development experiences of STEM Starters teachers.

CurriculumSTEM Starters utilized an inquiry-

based curriculum focused on real-world problems and overarching concepts such as systems and change. In particular, gifted students participated in three units of study; two units of inquiry-based curriculum were delivered in the regular classroom and one unit in their gifted pull-out classroom (Cotabish, et al., in press). In addition, gifted students studied biographies of famous scientists and inventors using Blueprints for Biography® that were aligned with the science curriculum in their pull-out classroom. All units incorporated scientific thinking and reasoning as well as advanced science content. Table 2 provides details of the gifted students’ curriculum units by grade level.

WHAT WERE THE EFFECTS OF THE STEM STARTERS MODEL ON TEACHERS

AND STUDENTS? Does the STEM Starters

professional development model improve the science instructional skills of teachers and the science learning of their students? When compared to a control group,

TABLE 1Teacher Professional Development Across 2 Years

Summer Institute Peer Coaching

Year 1 30 hours of professional development (out-of-school)

Training specific to:• curriculum units• inquiry-based strategies• differentiation for high-ability learners• identification of gifted students from

underrepresented groups

30 hours of professional development (in-school)Peer Coach roles included:

• support for implementation of curriculum units

• model teaching• instructional facilitator• material facilitator• content expert

Year 2 30 hours of professional development (out-of-school)

Training specific to:• science content development• inquiry-based strategies• management of a science classroom

30 hours of professional development (in-school)Peer Coach roles included:

• instructional facilitator• material facilitator• content expert


teachers who participated in STEM Starters demonstrated increased skills in designing an experiment and improved perceptions of their ability to teach and of their students’ ability to learn science (Cotabish, et al., 2011; Dailey, Cotabish, Robinson, Hughes, 2012). According to Sinclair, Naizer, and Ledbetter (2010), increased understanding of experimental design and improved confidence in teaching science enhances a teacher’s capacity to lead effective science instruction. Furthermore, preliminary results indicated students of STEM Starters teachers demonstrated improvements in their ability to design an experiment, and in their understanding of science content and concept knowledge (Cotabish, et al., in press). With respect to gifted students in the STEM Starters program, the pattern appears to hold. Initial results indicated student improvement in science process skills, concept knowledge, and content knowledge. The results of these studies, including improved student achievement, supported the use of a peer-coaching model to facilitate changes in the classroom.

CONCLUSIONRecall the classroom described in

the introduction of this manuscript. The teacher was a second-year

participant in STEM Starters. She attended two week-long summer institutes focused on science, and received two consecutive years of peer coaching support. Early in the implementation, the peer coach was concerned about the teacher’s ability to lead science instruction. The teacher lacked confidence in her science teaching and relied heavily on the lesson plan prompts. As a result, students were bored, disengaged, and showed little interest in science. Over time, the teacher demonstrated less dependence on the peer coach and much-improved skills in leading the science lesson (Cotabish, et al., 2011; Dailey, et al., 2012). As a result, students are now engaged in science and display an enthusiasm for their learning. Furthermore, after teachers participated in the STEM Starters professional development program, their students demonstrated an increase in science achievement (science content and concept knowledge, and process skills; Cotabish, et al., in press). The change in their teacher’s instructional ability did not occur overnight; it took many hours of curriculum specific-training and embedded peer coaching support.

In efforts to improve teacher effectiveness and student outcomes in the classroom, one-shot attempts at professional development are a

thing of the past. In its influential report, the National Science Board (2010) recommended rigorous, research-based STEM preparation for elementary teachers because of their frequent contact with potential STEM innovators at young ages. Earlier, the National Research Council (2007) recommended that all K–8 teachers (preservice and in-service) receive sustained science-specific training that mirrors the science taught in their classrooms. Peer coaching is a means of sustaining and embedding professional development in the real-life context of a classroom, thereby providing optimal training and support for the teacher. The relationship forged between the STEM Starters peer coach and partner teachers was one of mutual respect, shared responsibility, and developing friendship. This relationship was the driving force for positive change in the STEM Starters classrooms. In the beginning, the teachers were somewhat hesitant to have the peer coach visit the classroom, but later the peer coach became a welcomed and valued collaborator. Working together, the peer coach and the teacher became the integral part of the model for developing STEM talent.

REFERENCESAppleton, K. (2008). Developing science

pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 523–545. doi:10.1007/s10972-008-9109-4.

Chase, A., & Wolfe, P. (1989). Off to a good start in peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 46(3), 37.

Coates, D. (2006). ‘Science is not my thing’: Primary teachers’ concerns about challenging gifted pupils. Education, 34, 49–64. doi: 10.1080/03004270500507586

Cotabish, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, A., & Robinson, A. (2011). The effects of a STEM professional development intervention on elementary teachers’

TABLE 2Curriculum Units by Grade Level

Grade Level

Problem-Based Learning Units Blueprints for Biography®

2 Weather Reporter*1

Budding Botanist*2

George Washington Carver or

Louis Pasteur

3 What’s the Matter*1

Dig It*2

Galilei Galileo orAlbert Einstein

4 Electricity City**1

Invitation to Invent*2

Thomas Edison orMichael Faraday

5 Acid, Acid Everywhere**1

Nuclear Energy**2

Marie Curie orAlexander Graham Bell

Note. *College of William and Mary Project Clarion Primary Science Unit. ** College of William and Mary Problem-Based Unit. 1 Curriculum unit in the general classroom. 2

Curriculum unit in the gifted pull-out classroom.


science process skills. Research in the Schools, 18(2), 16–25.

Cotabish, A., Dailey, D., Robinson, A., & Hughes, A. (in press). The effects of a STEM intervention on elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. School Science and Mathematics.

Cotabish, A., & Robinson, A. (2012). The effects of peer coaching on the evaluation knowledge, skills, and concerns of gifted program administrators. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 160–170. doi: 10.1177/0016986212446861

Dailey, D., Cotabish, A., Robinson, A., & Hughes, G. (2012, April). Effects of implementing a STEM initiative on elementary teacher perceptions and concerns about science teaching and learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Vancouver, BC.

Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three year longitudinal study. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81–112.

Fulp, S. L. (2002). Status of elementary school science teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. Retrieved from http://2000survey.horizon-research.com/reports/elem_science/elem_science.pdf

Gustafson, B., Guilbert, S., & MacDonald, D. (2002). Beginning elementary science teachers: Developing professional knowledge during a limited mentoring experience. Research in Science Education, 32, 298–302.

Jenkins, J. M., Garn, A., & Jenkins, P. (2005). Preservice teacher observations in peer coaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24, 2–22.

Jenkins, J. M., & Veal, M. L. (2002). Preser v ice teachers’ PCK development during peer coaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 49–68.

Latz, A. O., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2009). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: Perspectives from

Project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31, 27–39.

Little, P. F. B. (2005). Peer coaching as a support to collaborative teaching. Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(1), 83–94.

National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital (NSB-10-33). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033

Robbins, P. (1991). How to plan and implement a peer coaching program. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Showers, B. (1982). Transfer of training: The contribution of coaching (Report No. ED 231 035). Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and Management, College of Education, University of Oregon.

Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12–16.

Sinclair, B. B., Naizer, G., & Ledbetter, C. (2011). Observed implementation of a science professional development program for K–8 classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 579–594. doi:10.1007/s10972-010-9206-z

Slater, C. L., & Simmons, D. L., (2001). The design and implementation of a peer coaching program. American Secondary Education, 29(3), 67–76.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Planning science programs for high ability learners. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-3/science.htm

Debbie Dailey is currently the Curriculum Coordinator and Peer Coach for STEM Starters, a federally-funded Javits project which is housed in the Jodie Mahony Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Debbie taught high school chemistry, physics, and biology for 14 years before moving to the elementary grades to teach gifted and talented classes. Debbie has been honored by NAGC as a 2011 Doctoral Student of the Year. Currently, Debbie is working on her dissertation to complete a doctorate degree in educational administration with an emphasis in gifted education. Alicia Cotabish, Ed.D. is an Assistant Professor of Teaching and Learning at the University of Central Arkansas. She is the former Associate Director of the Jodie Mahony Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. In addition, Dr. Cotabish has managed two Jacob K. Javits projects, STEM Starters and the Arkansas Evaluation Initiative in Gifted Education. She is currently the President-Elect of the Arkansas Association of Gifted Education Administrators. Ann Robinson, Ph.D., is Professor of Educational Psychology and Founding Director of the Jodie Mahony Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. She served as the President of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) from 2009–2011 and is a for-mer editor of the Gifted Child Quarterly. Ann has been honored by NAGC as Early Scholar, Early Leader, and Distinguished Scholar and for Distinguished Service to the association. In 2004, she and co-author Sidney Moon received the Gifted Child Quarterly Paper of the Year for “A National Study of State and Local Advocacy in Gifted Education.” Ann has served as Principal Investigator for several federally funded research and demonstration projects, including STEM Starters. Her book, Best Practices in Gifted Education: An Evidence-Based Guide, was hon-ored with a Texas Legacy Book Award. She has a passion for reading biography that has been translated into a series of teacher guides for using biography in the classroom, Blueprints for Biography.

In efforts to improve teacher effectiveness and

student outcomes in the classroom, one-

shot attemptsat professional

development are a thing of the past.

Identify ALL your talented and gifted students! Adapt instruction

to all ability levels/styles!

For information and/or samples contact:

Heather Queener, Ph.D. [email protected] Northeast Texas, Dallas and

Tarrant Counties

Dennis Murphy [email protected] Central and Southeast Texas

Lupina Vela [email protected]

South Texas, Southeast Texas, West Texas, and El Paso County

Scott Dittner [email protected]

North Texas and Panhandle

• Now available in English and Spanish for grades K-2

• Continues to provide information on verbal, quantitative, and non-verbal abilities

• Free online Ability Profiles with emphasis on individual learning styles

• CogAT Screening Form also available

The New CogAT ® (Cognitive Abilities Test TM), Form 7

Identify ALL your talented and gifted students! Adapt instruction

to all ability levels/styles!

For information and/or samples contact:

Heather Queener, Ph.D. [email protected] Northeast Texas, Dallas and

Tarrant Counties

Dennis Murphy [email protected] Central and Southeast Texas

Lupina Vela [email protected]

South Texas, Southeast Texas, West Texas, and El Paso County

Scott Dittner [email protected]

North Texas and Panhandle

• Now available in English and Spanish for grades K-2

• Continues to provide information on verbal, quantitative, and non-verbal abilities

• Free online Ability Profiles with emphasis on individual learning styles

• CogAT Screening Form also available

The New CogAT ® (Cognitive Abilities Test TM), Form 7


Although cognitive variables are often addressed in the gifted literature, psychosocial variables are less often researched, particularly in the area of emotional needs. Qualities linked to emotional development include the ability to adapt, know and understand one’s emotions,

manage or regulate emotions and stress, motivate one-self, recognize emotions in others, express emotions when interacting with others, and promote emotional growth (Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1995; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). In his studies of gifted individuals, Dabrowski (1964, 1967) noticed that gifted individuals experienced life with greater intensity of emotions and sensitivity. Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration suggests that difficult experi-

ences and the ability to recover from them may lead to higher levels of psychological structures. Overexcitabilities are the mechanism by which one could evolve to higher levels. Dabrowski and Piechowski (1977) highlighted five forms of excitabilities, with one of these addressing the emotional area. Along with Dabrowski’s theory, Hébert (2011) described other frameworks that educators may find useful in supporting the emotional development of gifted and talented children. These include emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995; Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and Sternberg’s Balance Theory of Wisdom (2003). Due to the unique affective needs of gifted students, which can be easily overlooked, this summary focuses on the emo-tional development of gifted and talented students. We exam-

What the Research Says About

the Emotional Needs of Gifted and Talented Students

Sonia L. Parker, Kari J. Hodge, and Susan K. Johnsen, Ph.D.


ined articles

that had been published since

2002 in Gifted Child Today, Gifted Child Quarterly,

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Journal of Advanced Academics, and Roeper Review. To be included, the article needed to be empirical and address gifted students’ emotional characteristics, affective development, and/or educational programs.

The search yielded 33 articles. There were 22 quantitative stud-ies (Bain, Choate, & Bliss, 2006; Chan, 2004; Cross, Adams, Dixon, & Holland, 2004; Cross, Cassady, Dixon, & Adams, 2006; Cross, Cassady, & Miller, 2006; Cross, Speirs Neumeister, & Cassady, 2007; Delcourt, Cornell, & Goldberg, 2007; Dixon, Lapsley, & Hanchon, 2004; Gross, Rinn, & Jamieson, 2007; Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006; Mueller, 2009; Peterson & Ray, 2006a; Preuss & Dubow, 2004; Pruett, 2004; Rinn, Mendaglio, Rudasill, & McQueen, 2010; Rizza & Morrison, 2003; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012; Speirs Neumeister & Finch, 2006; Tieso, 2007; Tsui, 2007; Woitaszewski & Aalsma, 2004; Yoo & Moon, 2006); eight qualitative studies (Adams-Byers, Whitsell, & Moon, 2004; Eddles-Hirsch, Vialle, Rogers, & McCormick, 2010; Fredricks, Alfeld, & Eccles, 2010; Peterson & Ray, 2006b; Reis, Colbert, & Hébert, 2005; Sankar-DeLeeuw, 2007; Speirs Neumeister, 2004a, 2004b), and three mixed-meth-ods studies (Peterson, Duncan, & Canady, 2009; Peterson & Lorimer, 2011; Shaunessy & Suldo, 2010).

Participants in the samples

ranged from kindergar-ten through college. There

were 10 studies where the participants spanned multiple grades from elemen-tary to high school (Adams-Byers et al., 2004; Chan, 2004; Gross et al., 2007; Mueller, 2009; Peterson et al. 2009; Peterson & Lorimer, 2011; Peterson & Ray, 2006a, 2006b; Rinn et al., 2010; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012). Eight studies focused on elementary students only (Delcourt et al., 2007; Eddles-Hirsch et al., 2010; Fredricks et al., 2010; Preuss & Dubow, 2004; Pruett, 2004; Sankar-DeLeeuw, 2007; Tsui, 2007; Woitaszewski & Aalsma, 2004); nine on high school students (Cross et al., 2004; Cross, Cassady et al., 2006; Cross, Cassady, & Miller, 2006; Cross et al., 2007; Dixon et al., 2004; Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006; Reis et al., 2005); and five on college students (Bain et al., 2006; Speirs Neumeister & Finch, 2006; Rizza & Morrison, 2003; Shaunessy & Suldo, 2010; Speirs Neumeister, 2004a, 2004b).

Psychological characteristics of academically gifted students have been studied using a variety of instruments. Woitaszewski and Aalsma (2004) examined the contribution of emo-tional intelligence to the social and academic success of gifted adoles-cents using the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale. They did not find any significant relationship between emotional intelligence and success. Similarly, in several studies, gifted stu-dents were viewed as quite similar to the normative group of adolescents in their performance on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for Adolescents (MMPI-A; Cross et al., 2004; Cross, Cassady, et al., 2006). Gifted students also did not have higher rates of suicide ideation when compared to their nongifted peers

(Cross, Cassady, & Miller, 2006). On the other hand, gifted students had higher scores on an adaptability measure but lower scores on stress management and impulse control (Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006). On moral judgment, however, gifted students were comparable to the level of individuals with master’s or profes-sional degrees. They also showed an above-average level of leadership when compared to the normative sample. Differences were also found on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Cross, Cassady, & Miller, 2006; Cross et al., 2007). The researchers reported that the Intuition (N) and Perceiving (P) combination was more prevalent in gifted students who attended selected programs. Gifted males also showed a stronger propensity toward thinking than females who were distributed across the thinking-feeling dimension. The authors suggested that N and P psychological types prefer instruc-tional methods that emphasize inde-pendence, self-paced learning, and higher level discussion.

The articles that examined over-excitabilities in gifted children used the Overexcitabilities Questionnaire II (Gross et al., 2007; Rinn et al., 2010; Tieso, 2007). Rinn et al. (2010) reported that those who scored lower in psychomotor ability also reported a lower self-concept. Gross et al. (2007) stated that there were gender differences on the sensual, imagina-tion, and emotional subscales and grade-level differences in intellectual subscale, but no gender or grade-level differences were reported on the psy-chomotor subscale. Tieso (2007) also found differences on the overexcitabil-ities scale in age and gender but noted the biggest differences were related to family membership and that charac-teristics might appear similar to those with learning or behavioral problems.

Besides overexcitabilities, gifted students do exhibit different types of perfectionism that have differential effects. At the elementary level, gifted

Besides overexcitabilities, gifted students do exhibit different types of perfectionism that have differential effects.


students exhibited some characteristics of perfectionism but overall had no negative tendencies at this age (Pruett, 2004). Middle school students’ perfec-tionism, however, was related to higher math anxiety (Tsui, 2007). These stu-dents were concerned over mistakes, doubted their actions, and were sensi-tive to parental criticism. Dixon et al. (2004) found a relationship between perfectionism and mental health. Pervasive and mixed maladaptive per-fectionists had more obsessive-com-pulsive tendencies, a poorer self-image, a lower sense of personal security, and patterns of dysfunctional coping. Speirs Neumeister (2004a, 2004b) identified two types of perfectionists: socially-prescribed and self-oriented. Socially-prescribed perfectionists used peers as a yardstick to evaluate their performance whereas self-oriented per-fectionists looked for challenges and had a strong work ethic. She suggested that teachers and counselors needed to identify the motives behind per-fectionism because socially-prescribed perfectionism can lead to high levels of anxiety, depression, and negative feelings of self-worth.

Coping responses of gifted and typical children to childhood stressors were also studied (Preuss & Dubow, 2004). Gifted girls reported using more problem-solving strategies to cope with academic and peer stressors whereas gifted boys reported fewer cop-ing strategies as compared with typical girls, typical boys, and the gifted girls groups. Teacher ratings, on the other hand, showed better academic and social adjustment for the gifted stu-dents than the students’ reported. These results may indicate that gifted students may hide some of their concerns from their teachers and peers.

Undergraduate students shared negative stereotypes of the emotional, developmental, and social issues expe-rienced by gifted students. Using sur-veys, Bain et al. (2006) found that 69% of preservice teachers thought that gifted students were more

likely to have emotional problems than their nongifted counterparts. On the other hand, preservice and in-ser-vice teachers used positive stereotypes in identifying gifted students and were less likely to identify those who exhib-ited emotional/behavioral difficulties. Rizza and Morrison (2003) concluded that teachers needed to learn how to identify twice-exceptional students—those who are gifted and also have a behavior disability.

The functions of protective and risk factors were also explored in these articles. Reis et al. (2005) examined protective factors that develop resil-ience in high school students, which then led to these students’ higher achievement. These protective fac-tors included social support systems, involvement in extracurricular activ-ities, positive parental role modeling, participation in gifted programs, and challenging courses. They found that risk factors that negatively impacted achievement included personal and family problems and prior negative interactions with teachers. Gifted students with more protective fac-tors such as school belonging, par-ent-family connectedness, and positive self-concept seemed to exhibit fewer depressive symptoms (Mueller, 2009). Both articles stressed the importance of developing and supporting protec-tive factors in gifted students.

The role of persons working with gifted students had specific influences on the emotional needs of the students (Sankar-DeLeeuw, 2007). Parenting styles were discussed as a potential antecedent of the development of perfectionism and achievement moti-vation patterns that had emotional impacts (Speirs Neumeister & Finch, 2006). Parents seemed to believe that nega-tive life events were highly stress-

ful for the students whereas the stu-dents noted that peer relationships, academic challenges, school transi-tions, and overcommitment were the most difficult and stressful situations (Peterson et al., 2009). Additionally, the reasons for parents who had brought their children to a counseling center were assessed through intake forms. For younger children, psycho-social concerns seemed to the primary factor and for students after age 12, career planning was a more prevalent influence (Yoo & Moon, 2006).

There were two studies that looked at experiences of bullying among gifted students. Even one incident of bullying could be perceived as highly distress-ing for the students (Peterson & Ray, 2006a, 2006b). Students in the eighth grade were asked to reflect on their experiences with bullying since kin-dergarten. A majority of the students (67%) noted having experienced some kind of bullying and 11% had multiple experiences with bullying (Peterson & Ray, 2006a). Additional insight was provided through detailed interviews conducted with a subset of the partic-ipants (Peterson & Ray, 2006b). The authors concluded that counselors and teachers need to be trained to conduct proactive, prevention-oriented class-room lessons on topics such as problem solving, friendship skills, making good choices, expressing feelings, organiza-tion, and career development.

Specific programs and group-ing practices were discussed in multiple articles. Gifted high s c h o o l stu-

...risk factors

that negatively

impacted achievement included

personal and family problems and prior negative

interactions with teachers.


dents enrolled in International Baccalaureate (IB) experienced dif-ferent stressors than their nongifted, IB-enrolled peers (Shaunessy & Suldo, 2010). Both groups of students reported deliberately taking actions to address stressors such as diverting their atten-tion to other activities. Gifted students preferred homogeneous grouping for academic achievement but heteroge-neous grouping to foster social/emo-tional relationships (Adams-Byers et al., 2004). When students were placed in separate class programs for the gifted, they seemed to have lower self-percep-tions of themselves than their gifted peers (Delcourt et al., 2007). Gifted students who were in pull-out classes in Israel reported higher satisfaction, behavioral self-concept, and empathy than their nongifted peers (Shechtman & Silektor, 2012). Students expressed the desire to be challenged academically while not appearing too different than their peers because of their academic successes. Moreover, elementary stu-dents indicated that regular education classrooms and the school setting in general diminished passion as opposed to gifted and talented classes (Fredricks et al., 2010). Passion was defined as the intrinsic desire to focus on a specific task allowing for feelings of control and decreasing self-consciousness, when gifted students do not have this passion, feelings of boredom negatively impact learning and their performance. These findings support the creation of school environments that nurture pas-sion. A balance between maintaining an environment that stimulated stu-dents both academically and affectively was of noted importance (Delcourt et al., 2007; Eddles-Hirsch et al., 2010; Peterson & Lorimer, 2011).

REFERENCESBar-On, R. (1997). The emotional quotient

inventory: Technical manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.

Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegra-tion. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Dabrowski, K. (1967). Personality-shaping through positive disintegration. Bos-ton: Little, Brown.

Dabrowski, K., & Piechowski, M. (1977). Theory of levels of emotional develop-ment: Vol. 1B. Multilevelness and pos-itive disintegration. Oceanside, NY: Dabor Science.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelli-gence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Hébert, T. P. (2011). Understanding the social and emotional lives of gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey and D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelli-gence: implications for educators (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.

Rinn, A. N., Mendaglio, S., Rudasill, K. M., & McQueen, K. S. (2010). Examining the relationship between the overexcitabilities and self-con-cepts of gifted adolescents via multi-variate cluster analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(1).

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelli-gence, and creativity synthesized. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S., & Moon, S. M. (2004). Gifted stu-dents’ perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 7–20.

This qualitative study used interviews and questionnaires to explore gifted children’s beliefs about grouping. The participants consisted of 44 children attending a summer gifted and tal-ented camp in at a large Midwestern University. The children attended one of three programs: Program I for those in grades 4 to 6, Program II for those in grades 6 to 8, and Program III for those in grades 9 to 11. The interview and questionnaire data were analyzed using a cross-case, constant-comparative pro-cedure. Three major themes emerged

from the data. The first theme was that the participants preferred homogeneous (high-ability) grouping for academic achievement. The second theme was that the participants preferred hetero-geneous (mixed-ability) grouping for social/emotional advantages. The third theme was the contradiction between the desire to be challenged and the sta-tus of being the top-ranking student in the class. A limitation of the study was that the participants did not rep-resent the general population of gifted students because they were students who were enrolled in the camp. One implication of the study is the need not only to use grouping to individualize instruction but also to group based on the academic and emotional needs of the gifted student.

Bain, S. K., Choate, S. M., & Bliss, S. L. (2006). Perceptions of devel-opmental, social, and emotional issues in giftedness: Are they real-istic? Roeper Review, 29, 41–48. doi:10.1080/02783190609554383

The purpose of this quantitative study was to assess undergraduate students’ perceptions about issues gifted students encounter. A 50-item questionnaire was administered to 285 undergrad-uate students who were then grouped by their enrollment in specific classes (Human Development or Educational Psychology) and by whether they had or had not received gifted ser-vices themselves. The article provided response details for each of these clas-sifications. The three areas of interest for the researchers were (a) development and family environment, (b) expecta-tions of future accomplishments, and (c) social and emotional functioning. For the purposes of this review, we reported the results related to gifted students’ emotional characteristics or development. The majority of the respondents believed that (a) giftedness predicted whether or not a child was more advanced in other developmental areas such as emotional development (63%), (b) gifted children who were

Earn a degree in Gifted and Talented Education! The Department of Educational Psychology at the University of North Texas offers several options for pursuing graduate studies in Gifted and Talented Education:

• Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Research, Concentration in Gifted and Talented Education (a limited amount of funding is available)

• Master of Science in Educational Psychology, Concentration in Gifted and Talented Education (entirely online)

• Graduate Academic Certificate, Gifted and Talented Education (entirely online; also prepares you to sit for the Texas licensure examination in gifted education)

For more information about the Department of Educational Psychology and the degrees offered in Gifted and Talented Education: http://www.coe.unt.edu/educational-psychology

Department of Educational Psychology Gifted and Talented Education

www.coegrad.unt.edu


intellectually gifted generally represented a homogeneous group (72%), (c) gifted individuals were more likely to suffer from emotional problems during their life span when com-pared to the general population (69%), (d) gifted individuals were more likely to have problems with social relationships when compared to the general population (77%), (e) gifted individuals were less likely to drop out of school when compared to the general population (90%), and (f) gifted individuals were less likely to become delinquent when com-pared to the general population (85%). The perceptions of the undergraduate students who may be preparing to become teachers (81% had such intentions) may influence how gifted students are treated. Many of their perceptions do not reflect current research literature. For example, respondents under-estimated the reported dropout frequency, incorrectly viewed gifted students as a homogeneous group, and viewed gifted individuals as having significant problems with social rela-tionships. The authors concluded that stigmatizing beliefs may influence programming and the need for social and emotional interventions.

Chan, D. W. (2004). Social coping and psychological dis-tress among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 30–41.

This quantitative study explored differences between social coping and psychological distress in a sample of 527 stu-dents in grades 4 to 13 that participated in a gifted program at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. These students were assessed with the Standard Progressive Matrices (non-verbal reasoning) and the Social Coping Questionnaire (social coping strategies in response to being gifted). A sub-sample of 264 students was also assessed using the Chinese General Health Questionnaire psychological (distress in five specific symptom areas). Results indicated that valuing peer acceptance, activity involvement, and avoidance behav-iors were used more frequently for social coping strategies than conformity, denial of giftedness, and discounting the importance of popularity. Boys were more likely to discount the importance of popularity and girls were more likely to value acceptance by age peers. Younger students disregard the importance of popularity more than older students. Avoidance coping strategies and valuing peer acceptance correlated highly with health related concerns (dysphoria, anxiety, and sleep disorders). This study pointed out the need for healthy coping strategies for gifted students.

Cross, T. L., Adams, C., Dixon, F., & Holland, J. (2004). Psychological characteristics of academically gifted adolescents attending a residential academy: A longi-tudinal study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 159–181.

The psychological characteristics of students attending a state-supported residential academy for academically gifted

adolescents (N = 139) were examined in this study. The ado-lescents completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for Adolescents (MMPI-A) upon entrance and completed a post administration of the MMPI-A at the end of their second year at the school. Results indicated that the gifted students were quite similar to the normative group of adolescents on the MMPI-A.

Cross, T. L., Cassady, J. C., Dixon, F. A., & Adams, C. M. (2006). The psychology of gifted adolescents as measured by the MMPI-A. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 326–339.

This study examined the personality and psychological char-acteristics of 567 eleventh and twelfth grade students who were attending a public residential high school for academ-ically gifted students. All were administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for Adolescents test. Results indicated that boys and girls score similarly on the MMPI-A and no differences were found between the gifted adolescents


and the general sample. The authors concluded that gifted adolescents do not experience heightened rates of neu-roticism or personality difficulties when compared to a normal group.

Cross, T. L., Cassady, J. C., & Miller, K. A. (2006). Suicide ideation and personality characteristics among gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 295–306.

This study examined the relation-ships between psychological per-sonality types and suicide ideation. Participants were 152 juniors (average age = 16.09; female = 84, male = 68) who were enrolled in a public residen-tial high school for academically gifted students. They were administered the Suicide Ideation Questionnaire and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator that contrasts four dimensions of person-ality: extraversion (E)/introversion (I), sensing (S)/intuition (N), think-ing (T)/feeling (F), and judging (J)/perceiving (P). Results indicated that the NP combination was more prev-alent in gifted students who attended selected programs than would be expected by chance alone. Gifted stu-dents were also evenly distributed on the E/I domain, which discounted the stereotype that gifted adolescents tend to be introverted. Males showed a strong propensity toward thinking with females distributed across the T/F dimension. Although females held higher rates of suicide ideation than males, the results indicated that gifted adolescents did not exhibit more rates of suicide ideation when compared to their nongifted peers. Gender, per-ceiving, and introversion combined to reliably predict approximately 18% of the variance in suicide ideation in the sample.

Cross, T. L., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., & Cassady, J. C. (2007). Psy-chological types of academically gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 285–294.

This study examined the psychologi-

cal types of 931 eleventh- and twelfth-grade students who were attending a public residential high school for aca-demically gifted students. They were administered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator that contrasted four dimen-sions of personality: extraversion (E)/introversion (I), sensing (S)/intuition (N), thinking (T)/feeling (F), and judging (J)/perceiving (P). The most

common types of psychological types reported by this sample were INTJ, INTP, INFP, ENFP, and ENTP. Compared to the normal population, gifted girls and boys in the present study indicated stronger preferences for N and P. Gender differences for the gifted sample were found on E/I, with males orienting toward I and females orienting toward E. Gifted females had a greater tendency toward I and T, and gifted males had a greater tendency for I than norming samples. The authors suggested that N and P psychological types preferred instructional meth-ods that emphasized independence, self-paced learning, and higher level discussions.

Delcourt, M. B., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. (2007). Cognitive and affective learn-ing outcomes of gifted elemen-tary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 359–381. doi:10.1177/0016986207306320

The purpose of this 2-year follow-up quantitative study was to evaluate both affective and academic changes

in students placed in advanced aca-demic programs. The population included 14 school districts in 10 states. The researchers compared nongifted students, high-achieving students without access to special grade-level gifted programs, and gifted students enrolled in special programs (separate class, pull-out, within-class, and special schools). In addition, the

effects of grouping arrangements on underserved populations for gifted and talented elementary students were examined. The students were assessed using multiple administrations of an achievement test, a self-perception survey, and a motivation inventory. Overall, there were differences in cog-nitive and affective outcomes between different programs. Gifted students in separate class, pull-out, and special schools had higher levels of achieve-ment than their peers. Most of these students were well adjusted, balancing social relations with their giftedness. Gifted students from the separate class program did seem to struggle with lower self-perceptions than their peers. The researchers noted the importance of acknowledging the social needs and academic impacts of specific grouping practices and the necessity to provide emotional support to gifted students in addition to the challenging academics.

Dixon, F. A., Lapsley, D. K., & Han-chon, T. A. (2004). An empiri-cal typology of perfectionism in

Gifted students in separate class, pull-out, and special schools

had higher levels of achievement than their peers.


gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 95–106.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between perfectionism and mental health implications, including indices of psychiatric symptomatology, adjustment, self-esteem, and cop-ing. Several instruments were given to 142 juniors attending a legisla-tive-funded residential academy for science, mathematics, and human-ities. These assessments included the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, the Hopkins Symptom Checklist, the Mastery Coping and Superior Adjustment scales from the Self-Image Questionnaire for Young Adolescents, the Perception of Personal Security and Academic Competence scales from the Self-Esteem Index, and the Coping Inventory. A two-step clus-ter analysis of subscales from the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale revealed four clusters. These included mixed-adaptive (n = 51), mixed-mal-adaptive (n = 30), pervasive (n = 30), and self-assured nonperfectionist (n = 39). The study suggested that maladap-tive perfectionism takes two forms: pervasive and mixed-maladaptive. A relationship was found between these two clusters and poor mental health, adjustment, and coping, as compared to the other cluster groups. Students in both clusters reported having more obsessive-compulsive tendencies, a poorer self-image, a lower sense of personal security, and patterns of dys-functional coping.

Eddles-Hirsch, K., Vialle, W., Rogers, K. B., & McCormick, J. (2010). “Just challenge those high-ability learners and they’ll be all right!”: The impact of social context and challenging instruction on the affective development of high-abil-ity students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 106–128.

This phenomenological study explored the experiences of 27 gifted elemen-

tary children attending three schools in Australia that employed strategies to meet the needs of gifted students. Although educators have theorized that special programs for gifted stu-dents benefit gifted children academ-ically and contribute positively to their social and emotional development, the authors reported limited research to support this belief. Students were interviewed on two separate occa-sions at school; member checking was also employed for accuracy. The results showed supporting students’ social and emotional development was as important as supporting their academic development. The school’s specific objectives influenced students’ perceptions about their emotional safety, acceptance of diversity, and teacher and peer relations.

Fredricks, J. A., Alfeld, C., & Eccles, J. (2010). Developing and foster-ing passion in academic and non-academic domains. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 18–30.

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how passion manifested itself in gifted and talent youth. A pur-poseful sample was drawn from a larger longitudinal study of child and adoles-cent development. The 41 participants were in kindergarten through grade 3 at the beginning of the study and in college at the completion of the study. The interviews revealed participants were more likely to discuss passions related to their extracurricular activi-ties that they had chosen such as the arts or sports than academic success. The participants indicated that regular education classrooms and the school setting in general diminished passion as opposed to gifted and talented classes. Additionally, when gifted students do not have passion, feelings of boredom negatively influenced learning and per-formance. These findings support the creation of school environments that nurture passion.

Gross, C. M., Rinn, A. N., &

Jamieson, K. M. (2007). Gifted adolescents’ overexcitabilities and self-concepts: An analy-sis of gender and grade level. Roeper Review, 29, 240–248. doi:10.1080/02783190709554418

This study examined the relationship between 248 gifted adolescents’ over-excitabilities and self-concept. The par-ticipants, ages 11 to 16, were attending summer programs at a two universi-ties. Approximately 85% of the sample was White. They were administered the Overexcitabilities Questionnaire-Two (OEQII) and the Self Description Questionnaire II (SDQ II). Verbal self-concept subscales were the most correlated with the overexcitabilities; imaginational overexcitability was the least correlated. The emotional stability subscale scores were neg-atively correlated with intellectual, imaginational, and emotional overex-citabilities. Gifted adolescent females reported higher sensual, emotional, and imaginational overexcitabilities than their male peers. Gifted eighth- and ninth-grade students had higher intellectual overexcitability scores than gifted sixth-grade students.

Lee, S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2006). The emotional intelli-gence, moral judgment, and lead-ership of academically gifted ado-lescents. Journal for the Education of The Gifted, 30, 29–67.

This study examined the level of emo-tional intelligence, moral judgment, and leadership of 234 gifted students in grades 10–12 who participated in an accelerative academic program or an enrichment leadership program through a university-based gifted institute. Of the sample, 52.8% were White, 26.4% were Asian, 7.4% were Black, and 3.1% Latino/Hispanic with 50.9% male and 49.1% female. Three psychometric scales were adminis-tered: BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version, Short Form; Bar-On, the Defining Issues


Test-2; and the Roets Rating Scale for Leadership. The vast majority of stu-dents (82.5%) were from the Midwest. When compared to a normal sample, gifted males were similar whereas gifted females lagged behind. Gifted students had higher scores on adapt-ability but lower scores on stress man-agement and impulse control ability. On moral judgment, gifted students were comparable to the level of indi-viduals with masters or professional degrees, and they showed an above-av-erage level of leadership compared to the normative sample. These results support the “belief that academically gifted students are more morally sensitive and advanced in moral rea-soning and possess greater leadership potential then heterogeneous groups of youngsters” (p. 56).

Mueller, C. E. (2009). Protective fac-tors as barriers to depression in gifted and nongifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 3–14. doi:10.1177/0016986208326552

The researcher used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) to compare how protective factors mod-erate depression in gifted and non-gifted students. The protective factors examined include self-concept, par-ent-family connectedness, and school belonging; depressive symptoms were a self-reported measure. The gifted sam-ple of 762 adolescents ranged from age 12 to 19 and the nongifted students were matched based on demographic variables. The gifted sample repre-sented the top 5% of scores on the Add Health Picture Vocabulary Test (AHPVT) and had an average score of 126 compared to the nongifted sample with an average score of 102. No significant differences were found between the gifted and nongifted sam-ples in protective factors but gifted stu-dents showed less depressive symptoms than the nongifted students. They also found that gifted Hispanic students were more depressed than the gifted

White adolescents. Protective factors were significant predictors of fewer depressive symptoms for both gifted and nongifted students. The research-ers concluded that there was a need for future research to continue explor-ing the social and emotional needs of gifted students and to examine how increasing protective factors may be a way to decrease depressive symptoms.

Peterson, J. S., Duncan, N., & Canady, K. (2009). A longitudi-nal study of negative life events, stress, and school experiences of gifted youth. Gifted Child Quar-terly, 53, 34–49.

This cross-sectional longitudinal study was conducted over an 11-year period and began with 121 elemen-tary students. Using a mixed-meth-ods design, the researchers followed the gifted students from elementary school through their high school grad-uation. Annually, parents reported negative life experiences for both the child and family such as death, seri-ous illness, or family changes. After attrition, 59 students remained in the study through their graduation and completed questionnaires reflecting on their experiences over their school years. Although the gifted students had experienced negative events as reported by their parents, they noted that peer relationships, school transi-tions, academic challenges, and over commitment were the most difficult experiences. The researchers noted that those interacting with gifted students ought to be sensitive towards the levels of stress that gifted students encoun-tered outside of negative life experi-ences. Some of the specific insights of the students are captured in the arti-cle that may further help the reader understand the specific emotions in response to life events and challenging situations. The discrepancies between perceived stressors as described by par-ents and students draws attention to the need for future research and dis-

cussions about the emotional needs and causes of stress for gifted students.

Peterson, J., & Lorimer, M. R. (2011). Student response to a small-group affective curriculum in a school for gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 167–180. doi:10.1177/0016986211412770

This article looked at the implemen-tation of an affective curriculum focusing on the social and emotional needs of 260 gifted students in grades 5 to 8. This 5-year longitudinal study explored the curriculum in weekly teacher-led, development-oriented small-group discussions. The response of the students and the perceived value of the group experience were of partic-ular interest. The curriculum included approximately 100 topics over the 5-year period and included discus-sions on feelings, stereotypes, stress, values, change, ethical and moral issues, kindness, bullying, and resil-ience. Although the initial response to the program curriculum was negative, perceptions of the program changed over the course of 5 years. This result highlights the fact that the perceived effectiveness of the program may not be a quick process but rather occur slowly over time. Students in grade 5 were most receptive to the affective curriculum. Students in grades 5 and 6 noted that the curriculum had an overall positive effect on the school. Of additional importance was explaining the purpose of the program to the stu-dents, providing adequate training for those facilitating the groups, finding time for the meetings that would not eliminate choice activities for students, and choosing appropriate discussion topics.

Peterson, J., & Ray, K. E. (2006a). Bullying and the gifted: Vic-tims, perpetrators, preva-lence, and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 148–168. doi:10.1177/001698620605000206

The purpose of this study was to

C.P.’S CORNER


explore the phenomenon of bully-ing among gifted children and early adolescents, giving attention to both victims and perpetrators. Participants were 432 gifted eighth graders in 16 school districts in 11 states. A non-standardized survey instrument was used to collect data. The prevalence of being bullied was 67% with peak years being in middle school. Name calling was the most prevalent (35%), followed by teasing about appearance (24%), teasing about intelligence and grades (19%), pushing/shoving (13%), beating up (12%), knocking books (11%), and hitting/punching (9%). Of all the participants, 28% had bul-lied someone at some time during the first 9 years of school, with 16% of the gifted participants acting as bullies in grade 8. Although bullying bothered some victims (10–12%), the majority was not distressed at all. More surpris-ing was that 41% of the gifted eighth graders in this study worried about violence in school daily. The authors concluded that counselors and teach-ers need to be trained to conduct pro-active, prevention-oriented classroom lessons on topics such as problem solv-ing, friendship skills, making good choices, expressing feelings, organiza-tion, and career development.

Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006b). Bullying among the gifted: The subjective experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 252–269.

In conjunction with the quantitative data analysis on bullying in gifted students, the researchers conducted a qualitative study on the experiences of bullying among gifted students. The study included 57 structured interviews with gifted eighth-grade students. The major finding of the analysis was that even one incidence of bullying was highly distressful for some students. The authors sum-marized specific findings from the interviews:

1. Giftedness is associated with bul-lying in a unique way. Jealously

over the intelligence of the gifted individual as well as being differ-ent were both sources of bullying.

2. Nonphysical bullying can be highly distressing.

3. Although bullying may not be perceived as the gifted students’ fault, the gifted student feels responsibility for resolving it.

4. Over time and with age, coping strategies improve and emotional repair can occur.

5. Gifted bullies are capable of alter-ing their own behavior.

Students noted that bullies seemed more likely to attempt to intimidate students that they did not know, which highlighted the protective factor of being known. Nonphysical bullying included verbal bullying and name-calling, which resulted in violent thoughts and feeling poorly.

Gifted students may be able to lever-age their intellect in coping with bul-lying. It is the same intellect that can help bullies who are gifted students to change their negative behavior.

Preuss, L. J., & Dubow, E. F. (2004). A comparison between intellectu-ally gifted and typical children in their coping responses to a school and a peer stressor. Roeper Review, 26, 105–111.

This article investigated the coping responses of gifted and typical chil-dren to childhood stressors. The sam-ple included 52 gifted and 55 typical children in fifth and sixth grades from semi-rural elementary schools. Fifty percent of the typical participants and 45% of the gifted participants were female. Ninety-six percent of the sample was Caucasian. Data were col-lected from the administration of the


Self-Report Coping Scale for school and peer stressors, a demographic questionnaire, and from teacher rat-ings of social adjustment, academic adjustment, and academic potential (adapted from Work, Cowen, Parker, & Wyman, 1990). The gifted children reported using more problem-solv-ing strategies to cope with academic and peer stressors. The gifted boys endorsed fewer coping strategies as compared with the typical girls, typ-ical boys, and gifted girls groups. Teacher ratings showed better aca-demic and social adjustment for the gifted students.

Pruett, G. P. (2004). Intellectually gifted students’ perceptions of personal goals and work habits. Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 54–57.

Schuler’s Goals and Work Habits Survey was given to 46 fifth-grade intellectually gifted students to exam-ine the influences of perfectionism. The survey included six subareas: concern over mistakes, personal stan-dards, parental expectations, parental criticism, doubts and actions, and organization. Of those subareas, the strongest influence was that of paren-tal expectations. The study supported the notion that gifted fifth-grade stu-dents exhibit some characteristics of perfectionism, but overall, no negative tendencies at this age.

Reis, S. M., Colbert, R. D., & Hebert, T. P. (2005). Understanding resil-ience in diverse, talented students in an urban high school. Roeper Review, 27, 110–120.

This article examined factors that contributed to the achievement or underachievement of economically disadvantaged high school students. The sample included 35 high-ability freshman and sophomores. There were nine male achievers, nine female achievers, 12 male underachievers, and five female underachievers. High-ability students were defined as those demonstrating above-average potential

as measured by a score above the 90th percentile on standardized intelligence or achievement tests. Underachieving students were defined as high-ability students who were not achieving at an expected level based on their potential. The researchers used a compar-ative case study and ethnographic methods. The participants were observed for 3 years in their homes and community. The students who highly achieved developed support networks within the high school that included other high-achieving peers, family members, supportive teachers in previous years, and other adults such as coaches, counselors, and administrators. Social risk factors experienced by the high-ability under-achieving students included difficult relations with family members, sibling problems and rivalry, inconsistent role models and value systems within the family, and minimal parental aca-demic guidance and support. The key factors that may have affected the development of resilience or succeed-ing in school included the presence of positive peer support; involvement in extracurricular activities; sports, summer, and gifted programs; posi-tive parental role modeling; type and degree of parental involvement and parental education; participation in gifted programs in either elementary or middle school; and involvement with a teacher or a counselor as a role model. The researchers found that par-ticipation in religious training was also a factor, although to a lesser degree, and for girls a conscious decision not to date was a key factor in their level of achievement. Examples of the protec-tive and risk factors as perceived by the students are included in the appendix for additional insight. The researchers highlighted the importance of help-ing students cope with negative expe-riences by providing opportunities for the development of protective factors.

Rinn, A. N., & Wininger, S. R. (2007). Sports participation among aca-

demically gifted adolescents: Rela-tionship to the multidimensional self-concept. Journal for the Educa-tion of the Gifted, 31, 35–56.

This study examined the self-concepts of 264 gifted adolescents (mean age = 13.6) who participated in sports (n = 172) with those who did not par-ticipate in sports (n = 92). Of these, 136 were male and 128 were female. Approximately 84% of the partici-pants were White. Multiple facets of self-concept were measured using the Self Description Questionnaire II. No significant differences were found between the groups in these areas of self-concept: general school, parent relations, and honesty-trustworthi-ness. However, gifted students who participated in sports felt better about their appearance, had higher perceived rates of emotional well being, higher perceived same-sex peer relations, and higher beliefs about the self in general. Females had higher self-concepts of their verbal facility.

Rizza, M. G., & Morrison, W. F. (2003). Uncovering stereotypes and identifying characteristics of gifted students and students with emotional/behavioral disabili-ties. Roeper Review, 25, 73–77. doi:10.1080/02783190309554202

This quantitative study addressed the categorization of students with emo-tional/behavioral disabilities (EBD) and gifted students by 59 undergrad-uate and 33 graduate students. The subjects included a combination of preservice and in-service teachers. The respondents were asked to classify spe-cific behaviors as being exhibited by students with EBD, gifted students, gifted students with EBD (twice-ex-ceptional), or neither. Gifted students were typically viewed as displaying positive characteristics such as being independent and being loved by teachers. Conversely, students with EBD were stereotyped negatively with poor self-concept and being rebellious.

CHALLENGE, INSPIRE, ENGAGE. Looking for lifelong opportunities for your gifted and talented student? The Duke University Talent Identification Program, a nonprofit organization dedicated to serving academically talented youth, works with students, parents, and educators to identify, recognize, and engage students to help them reach their highest potential. Our programs include

• talent searches to identify and support gifted youth,• dynamic educational experiences on the Duke University campus, throughout the United States,

and abroad,• independent and distance learning opportunities,• and resources for parents and educators.

LEARN MORE.Our Texas representative can help you navigate the academic needs of your gifted and talented students. We mayalso be available to give a presentation to your district about Duke TIP. Contact Traci Guidry at [email protected] or (512) 473-8400. For more on Duke TIP, go to www.tip.duke.edu.


Though the perceptions of the exhibited behaviors varied, graduate and undergraduate students identified the needs of both groups of students similarly. This study called atten-tion to the emotional needs of gifted student and particu-larly the identification of twice-exceptional students. The authors concluded that for both preservice and in-service teachers, the needs of gifted students are important to con-sider in both planning and instruction.

Sankar-DeLeeuw, N. (2007). Case studies of gifted kin-dergarten children part II: The parents and teachers. Roeper Review, 29, 93–99.

This article reported the second part of a study of early life experiences of young gifted children focusing on parent and teacher roles. The sample included three boy and two girl kindergarten students between the ages of 5 years, 7 months and 5 years, 11 months whose IQ’s ranged from 131 to 141. The researcher used a case study methodology. Data were gathered through standardized assessments, observa-tions, parent and teacher questionnaires, and interviews. The parents assumed many roles in the lives of their young gifted children: teacher, coach, role model, facilitator, and provider of information. The parents reported that they provided for their children’s basic, emotional, and devel-opmental needs. The children’s teachers had different styles in approaching participants’ learning needs and filled the roles of facilitator, observer, parent-substitute, confidant to parents, and companion (peer). The author noted that parental identification of giftedness occurred at early ages while teacher identification was more difficult. Both play important roles in helping young gifted children grow intel-lectually, socially, and psychologically.

Shaunessy, E., & Suldo, S. M. (2010). Strategies used by intellectually gifted students to cope with stress during their participation in a high school International Bac-calaureate program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 127–137. doi: 10.1177/0016986209355977

The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to deter-mine if gifted high school students enrolled in International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Program experienced differ-ent stressors than their nongifted, IB-enrolled peers and whether unique coping strategies were utilized. Although previous research had found that students enrolled in the IB program had higher overall stress than those in general education, this research focused on differences between different groups of IB students. Using secondary data, the researchers classified 89 participants as high-achieving IB students and 52 were classified as gifted students. Both perceived stress and coping orientation were assessed. Regardless of giftedness, IB learners perceived similar lev-els of stress. Gifted IB students did use different strategies to cope with their stress such as becoming angry. They

also identified humor and social support as differentiating factors between the two groups of students. Both gifted and those not identified as gifted students reported deliberately taking actions to address stressors. The gifted population noted that they tried to refocus or divert their attention from stressors to other activities. With a highly challeng-ing program such as IB, professionals should be aware of particular demands, stressors, and coping mechanisms that gifted students experience.

Shechtman, Z. & Silektor, A. (2012). Social competencies and difficulties of gifted children compared to non-gifted peers. Roeper Review, 34, 63–72.

This quantitative study examined differences in social and emotional difficulties of 974 students in grades 5 to 12. The students came from eight schools in Israel and included 466 nongifted students, 330 gifted students in segregated classrooms for the gifted, and 178 gifted students in pull-out programs. Loneliness, social competence, empathy, and self-concept were all assessed. Gifted students in segregated classrooms had higher satisfaction of need fulfillment and gifted students in pull-out programs demonstrated higher levels of assertiveness. In both groups, the gifted students

TAGT thanks the following members ofthe 2012-2013 Corporate Partner Program


showed higher academic self-concept, behavioral self-concept, and empathy than their nongifted peers, and had lower anxiety, lower physical self-con-cept, and lower self-disclosure.

Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2004a). Interpreting successes and fail-ures: The influence on perfec-tionism on perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 311–335.

This qualitative interview study exam-ined the differences in the interpreta-tion of successes and failures in gifted college students. The participants were 12 first-year students in the hon-ors program of a large southeastern university who had scored high on either socially prescribed or self-ori-ented perfectionism, as defined by the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. Data were collected through in-depth, semistructured interviews that included open-ended questions. Findings were constructed using inductive data analysis. The results of this study indicated that socially prescribed perfectionists, ones who perceived that others have high expec-tations for them, tended to minimize their successes and blamed themselves for failures. Self-oriented perfection-ists, those who had a tendency to have high standards and motivation to attain perfectionism, made inter-nal attributions for their successes and situation-specific attributions for their failures. The author suggested that both types of perfectionists may need

counseling in how to deal with suc-cesses and failures and the emotions connected to experiencing either.

Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2004b). Understanding the relation-ship between perfectionism and achievement motivation in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 219–231.

Using a qualitative interview design, this study examined how either socially prescribed or self-oriented perfectionists at the college level per-ceived achievement motivation. Data indicated that the 12 college students with socially-prescribed perfection-ism described behaviors that were inf luenced by fear-of-failure such as refusing to participate in classes where they were not 100% confident they knew the answers, procrastinat-ing so that it’s acceptable to not do well, and using peers as a yardstick to evaluate their performance. On the other hand, self-oriented perfec-tionists were motivated to achieve as opposed to avoid failure and set mas-tery goals that were linked to evaluat-ing themselves in relationship to their peers. The self-oriented perfectionists looked for challenges and had a strong work ethic. The author concluded that teachers and counselors need to iden-tify the motives behind perfectionism because socially-prescribed perfection-ism can lead to high levels of anxiety, depression, and negative feelings of self-worth.

Speirs Neumeister, K. L., & Finch, H. (2006). Perfectionism in high ability students: Relational pre-cursors and influences on achieve-ment motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 238–250.

This quantitative study looked at a sample of 265 honors college fresh-man at a large university in the United States. The students had above-average SAT scores of 1396 compared to an average of 984 and high average GPA scores (4.2 out of 4.0 due to weighting of Advanced Placement courses). The researchers explored the relationship between perfectionism and achieve-ment of the high-ability students. They administered a number of question-naires and assessments during their orientation that assessed parenting style, perfectionism, relationships, and achievement goals. The authors reported that authoritative and per-missive parenting was associated with secure attachment. Insecure attach-ment is related to perfectionism and searching for acceptance. The authors concluded that for perfectionists, the school and home need to create psy-chologically safe environments where children are reassured that they are loved and accepted regardless of their performance. Perfectionism was closely associated with achievement goal orientation with people with high socially prescribed perfectionism more likely to adopt performance-approach and performance avoidance goals.

Tieso, C. L. (2007). Patterns of

TAGT thanks the following members ofthe 2012-2013 Corporate Partner Program


overexcitabilities in identified gifted students and their parents: A hierarchical model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 11–22. doi:10.1177/0016986206296657

The purpose of this study was to examine the underlying construct of overexcitabilities (OE) and to identify individual- and family-level factors that may explain gifted students’ pat-terns of OEs. A convenience sample of 143 identified gifted students, ranging in age from 5 to 15, who were in a uni-versity summer enrichment program and their parents (N = 161) partici-pated. The participants were reflective of an affluent university community. The Overexcitabilities Questionnaire (adapted version, OEQII) was administered. The following results were reported. The identified gifted students had the highest mean OE score on the Psychomotor OE, which suggests a heightened level of motion and energy. Females scored higher than males on Sensual and Emotional OEs whereas males scored higher on Intellectual OE, which suggests that females have different ways of know-ing than males. High Emotional and Intellectual OE scores may make gifted students more insightful and volatile in their relationships with peers and others. High Psychomotor and Emotional OEs in gifted students may lead to diagnoses of ADHD and other behavior disorders.

Tsui, J. M. (2007). Effects of math anx-iety and perfectionism on timed versus untimed math testing in mathematically gifted sixth grad-ers. Roeper Review, 29, 132–139.

This study examined the effects of math anxiety and perfectionism on math performance in mathematically gifted sixth graders using the variables of timed and untimed testing condi-tions. The sample included 36 sixth graders who were each given a paper-and-pencil calculations test in either a timed or untimed condition. After

taking the test and answering three questionnaires, they were then given a comparable form of the test in the alter-nate condition. If, for example, a stu-dent took the untimed assessment first, they would take the timed assessment last. The researchers found that the participants performed better during the untimed tests versus the timed tests; however, this was only signifi-cant when the timed condition came before the untimed condition. The results also showed that those children with higher levels of math anxiety or perfectionism had smaller discrepancies in their performance on the timed test and untimed test. Three measures of perfectionism were found to have pos-itive correlations with math anxiety. These included concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and parental criticism. The authors concluded that as math-anxiety level increases, perfec-tionism level also increases.

Woitaszewski, S. A., & Aalsma, M. C. (2004). The contribution of emotional intelligence to the social and academic success of gifted adolescents as measured by the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale-Adolescent Ver-sion. Roeper Review, 27, 25–30. doi:10.1080/02783190409554285

The purpose of this quantitative study was to measure emotional intelligence using an unpublished, adolescent ver-sion of the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS-A) to under-stand how it relates to interpersonal relations, social stress, and grade point average. There were 39 gifted children ages 15 through 18 who completed the MEIS-A, as well as the Behavior Assessment System for Children, the Test of Cognitive Skills (2nd edition), and students GPA. Emotional intelli-gence was not found to be a significant factor in social or academic success for these gifted students.

Yoo, J., & Moon, S. (2006). Counsel-ing needs of gifted students: An

analysis of intake forms at a uni-versity-based counseling center. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 52–61. doi:10.1177/001698620605000106

In this quantitative study, 120 intake forms were analyzed to determine rea-son that parents brought their gifted children, ages 4 to 18, to a universi-ty-based counseling center. Parents most often noted educational planning and school concerns as the rationale. The age of the students became sig-nificant factors for specific counsel-ing needs. For students older than 6, psychosocial concerns were a reason for counseling and after age 12, career planning became salient. This research provided insight into the various coun-seling needs experienced by preschool-ers, preadolescents, and adolescents as perceived by their parents. The impli-cations for both parents and counselors of the gifted students are discussed with an emphasis on the differences in needs of the gifted individuals. Sonia L. Parker is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. Her research interests relate to adult learning, training and development, and organizational behavior. Kari J. Hodge is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. Her research interests relate to teacher education, measurement and evaluation, and technology in education. Susan K Johnsen, Ph.D., is professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University where she directs the Ph.D. program and programs related to gifted and talented edu-cation. She is the author of more than 200 pub-lications including Identifying Gifted Students: A Practical Guide, books related to implementing the national teacher preparation standards and common core standards in gifted education, and tests used in identifying gifted students, and is editor-in-chief of Gifted Child Today. She serves on the Board of Examiners of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, is a reviewer and auditor of programs in gifted education, and is chair of the Knowledge and Skills Subcommittee of the Council for Exceptional Children. She is past president of The Association for the Gifted (TAG) and past president of the Texas Association for Gifted and Talented (TAGT). She may be reached at Department of Educational Psychology, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97301, Waco, TX 76798 or [email protected].

For more information about these or other Pearson assessments, please call 800.328.5999 l NNAT2.COM l OLSAT8.COM

Pearson’s assessments help you identify students for gifted and talented placement from multiple perspectives. Regardless of a student’s language or cultural background, we can help you identify their strengths so you can match them to appropriate gifted program options.

Doesn’t Always Look the SameGiftedness

Copy

right

© 20

12 Pe

arso

n Edu

catio

n, In

c. or

its affi

liate

(s). A

ll righ

ts res

erve

d. NN

AT, O

LSAT

, Alw

ays L

earn

ing, a

nd Pe

arso

n are

trade

mar

ks,

in th

e U.S.

and/

or ot

her c

ount

ries,

of Pe

arso

n Edu

catio

n, In

c. or

its affi

liate

(s). 7

330

12/1

2


TEMPO, a quarterly publication, welcomes manuscripts from educators, parents, and other advocates of gifted education. Manuscripts may focus on all areas of gifted/talented education including policies, applications of research, programs, and practices. TEMPO is a juried publication and manuscripts are evaluated by members of the editorial board and/or other reviewers. Please keep in mind the following when submitting manuscripts:1. Manuscripts should be 2,000 to 10,000

words on a topic related to gifted education.2. References should follow the APA style

outlined in the sixth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.

3. Submit an electronic copy, typed, 12 pt. font, double-spaced manuscript. Use a 1 1/2" margin on all sides and number pages.

4. In addition to the title page, a cover page must be attached that includes the author’s name, title, school or program affiliation, home and work address, e-mail address, phone numbers, and fax number.

5. Place tables, figures, illustrations, and photographs on separate pages. Each should have a title and be referenced in the text. Submit electronically with manuscript.

6. Author(s) is fully responsible for accuracy of quotations, citations, figures, and facts.

7. Author(s) of accepted manuscripts must transfer copyright to TEMPO, which holds copyright to all articles and reviews.

8. Upon acceptance of a manuscript, the author(s) submits a 50–100 word biography and a 100–150 word abstract of the manuscript.

Please send manuscripts and inquiries to:Krystal Goree, Ph.D. TEMPO Editor [email protected]

Guidelines for Article Submissions

2013 Board OfficersMarilyn Swanson, President—Gifted Students Institute, SMU

Dr. Mary Christopher, President-Elect—Hardin-Simmons University

Dr. Lynette Breedlove, Immediate Past President—Spring Branch ISD

Priscilla Lurz, Secretary/Treasurer—Northside ISD

JJ Colburn, Executive Director—TAGT

Designated Board MembersLen Avecilla, Keller

D’Lana Barbay, Vidor ISD

Phyllis Baum, Region 14 ESC

Bronwen Choate, Graham

Mary Ann Clark, El Paso ISD

Melynda Cundieff, Jacksonville ISD

Dr. Christina Dearman, Denton ISD

Jan DeLisle, Lovejoy ISD

Renee’ Elmore, Paris ISD

Tracy Fisher, Coppell

Merrill Hammons, Brownsville ISD

Dr. Ned Moss, Missouri City

Mary Lea Pfenninger, Region 3 ESC

Janet Smith, Temple

Editorial Board MembersDr. Krystal Goree, Chair, Baylor University

Dr. Ann Batenburg, Southern Methodist University

Elizabeth Chapman, Lamar University

Lacy Compton, Prufrock Press Inc.

Dr. Susan Johnsen, Baylor University

Raine Maggio, Lake Travis ISD

Dr. Glen Teal, Lubbock ISD

Editorial Peer Review BoardDr. Lynette Breedlove,

Spring Branch ISD

Judy Bridges, Midland ISD

Dr. Dina Brulles, Arizona State University

Paige Carpenter, Coppell ISD

Elizabeth Chapman, Lamar University

Dr. Mary Christopher, Hardin Simmons University

Dr. Alicia Cotabish, University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Ryan Davis, Temple ISD/Temple College

Lynn Dodge, ESC Region II

Dr. Lemoyne Dunn, University of North Texas

Dr. Gwen Frank, SUNY College at Oneonta

Dr. Arthur Granada, Wichita State University

Meredith Hairell, Victoria ISD

Dr. Karen Hassell, Waco ISD

Regina Hein, The School of Liberal Arts & Science, Dallas, TX

Ellen Lukasic, University of Texas, University Charter Schools

Dr. Judith Martin, Bulverde, Texas

Dr. Christi McWilliams-Abendroth, Ann Arbor School of

the Performing Arts

Dr. Joyce Miller, University of Texas A&M–Commerce

Patricia Milleric, Houston Community College

Cecily Moore, San Marcos CISD

Qunita Ogletree, First Metropolitan IDC

Connie Phelps, Emporia State University

Melissa Saphos, Pearland ISD

Dr. Rebecca Schlosser, Sul Ross State University

Dr. Patricia Smith, Prairie View A&M University

Sandra Stocks, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD

Tonya Trepinski, Baylor University Dr. Debra Troxclair,

Lamar University

Dr. Kimberly Tyler, Texas Wesleyan University

Marcy Voss, Boerne ISD

Melanie Williams, Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD

Call For ManuscriptsHere is your chance to have your voice heard! If you would like to be considered

for publication in an upcoming issue of TEMPO, please follow the guidelines for article submissions below. We are currently soliciting manuscripts for the following issues. For deadlines and more details regarding upcoming issues, please contact TEMPO editor Krystal Goree at [email protected].

Curriculum Delivery Models for Gifted Education due March 1, 2013

Gifted and Talented Program Services due June 1, 2013

Acceleration and Grouping Practices

due September 1, 2013

Assessment due January 1, 2014

For more information about these or other Pearson assessments, please call 800.328.5999 l NNAT2.COM l OLSAT8.COM

Pearson’s assessments help you identify students for gifted and talented placement from multiple perspectives. Regardless of a student’s language or cultural background, we can help you identify their strengths so you can match them to appropriate gifted program options.

Doesn’t Always Look the SameGiftedness

Copy

right

© 20

12 Pe

arso

n Edu

catio

n, In

c. or

its affi

liate

(s). A

ll righ

ts res

erve

d. NN

AT, O

LSAT

, Alw

ays L

earn

ing, a

nd Pe

arso

n are

trade

mar

ks,

in th

e U.S.

and/

or ot

her c

ount

ries,

of Pe

arso

n Edu

catio

n, In

c. or

its affi

liate

(s). 7

330

12/1

2

Omni Austin Hotel

at SouthPark April 8–9, 2013

2013 annual

Leadership

conference

Texas Association for the Gifted & Talented

2013 annual

Leadership

conference Keynote speaker:

Tracy L. Cross, ph.d., Executive Director

of the Center for Gifted Education at The College of

William and Mary

presentation: From Underachievement to Suicide:

How Students Cope with Being Gifted

Registration Fee: TAGT Member Rate $199; Non-Member Rate $299

Deadline for Registration: April 3

Hotel Cost: $115 rate for single or double; Reserve by

March 17 to guarantee this rate.

For more information or to register, visit txgifted.org or call 512.499.8248.

Designed for experienced administrators, coordinators and specialists in gifted education Attendees will have the chance to discuss best practices, innovative programs, current topics

impacting the G/T community and much more!

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDAustin, Texas

Permit No. 9411524 S. IH 35, Suite 205Austin, Texas 78704 Address Service Requested

2013-1

Documents

Transcript of 2013-1