revisiting gifted education literature review

Skip to content
Skip to search
Staff portal (Inside the department)
Student portal
Key links for students

Other users

Forgot password

Notifications

{{item.title}}, my essentials, ask for help, contact edconnect, directory a to z, how to guides.

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation

Revisiting gifted education

This literature review was originally published 4 June 2019.

Revisiting gifted education ( )
Revisiting gifted education summary ( )

This literature review summarises the gifted education research base. It synthesises the best-quality available research into the learning characteristics of gifted students. It also provides summaries of the research on effective practices in gifted education for schools and teachers.

Main findings

Gifted students need more challenging learning with greater depth and complexity.

Gifted students can have a level of cognitive function typical of students several years older, with high levels of fluid thinking, reasoning and working memory function. Teaching programs, feedback, deliberate practice, and opportunities to access advanced learning are all necessary to help gifted learners achieve at a high level and develop their talent over time.

Gifted students are found in all social groups

Many students from disadvantaged backgrounds underachieve because of fewer opportunities to learn and develop their talent. Gifted students can also have a co-existing disability, which means they require support for their disability as well as talent development to help them reach their educational potential.

Lack of adequate challenge can contribute to social and emotional challenges

Key social and emotional challenges for gifted students include boredom, disengagement, and perfectionist-type behaviours. Challenging school learning experiences, along with positive social relationships and a supportive school environment, can help gifted students thrive.

Gifted students benefit from explicit teaching and well-structured learning

Like all students, gifted learners require scaffolding and structure in learning to help manage the demands of cognitive load. Explicit teaching and guided inquiry are just as necessary for gifted students as for all students. Gifted learners may be able to move through structured and scaffolded activities at a faster pace, and then can benefit from problem solving and applied tasks.

Specific strategies are also needed to help gifted students achieve their best

There is strong research to support teaching practices that help align the challenge, complexity, depth and pace of learning with the learning needs of gifted students. This can done through evidence-based effective strategies such as curriculum acceleration, extension and enrichment learning experiences.

Related resources

Revisiting gifted education poster
Revisiting gifted education MyPL course
Gifted education podcast
Revisiting gifted education audio paper
High Potential and Gifted Education resources and policy
Literature review

Business Unit:

Reference Manager
Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2. Giftedness at school: legislation and needs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Methodology

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

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

2.1. Planning

2.1.1. defining the objectives of the review.

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

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

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

2.1.2. Specifying research questions

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

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

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

2.1.3. Developing and evaluating the review protocol

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

2.2. Conducting

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

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

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

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

Table 1. Web of Science criteria.

1. Categories: Education Educational Research, Education Special.

2. Document Types: Books.

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

4. Language: English, Italian.

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

Table 2. Scopus criteria.

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

2. Subject Area: Social Sciences.

3. Document Types: Books.

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

2.2.2. Assessing the quality of studies

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

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

2.2.3. Data extraction and synthesis

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 4. Treemap of word frequency in titles.

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

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

Figure 6. Wordcloud of abstracts.

2.3. Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 7 shows the most relevant authors in the review.

Figure 7. Most relevant authors in the review.

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

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

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

Table 4. Quality assessment checklist.

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

Figure 8 shows the results of the quality assessment.

Figure 8. Quality assessment results.

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

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

2.3.1. Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Conclusion

3.1. the limit of “citation culture”.

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

Figure 9. Most relevant affiliations in the review.

Figure 10. Most relevant states in the review.

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

3.2. Future research perspectives

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

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

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

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

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

Data availability statement

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

Author contributions

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

Conflict of interest

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

Publisher’s note

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

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

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

Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewed by:

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

This article is part of the Research Topic

Insights in Teacher Education: 2022

Acknowledgements
Toggle view

Revisiting gifted education : literature review / author: Dr Ben North and Kate Griffiths

What can I do with this?

In Copyright

You may order a copy or use the online copy for research or study; for other uses Contact us .

Copyright status was determined using the following information:

Copyright status may not be correct if data in the record is incomplete or inaccurate. Other access conditions may also apply.

For more information please see: Copyright in library collections .

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

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

Advanced Search
Journal List
Sage Choice

Paradigm Shifts in Gifted Education: An Examination Vis-à-Vis Its Historical Situatedness and Pedagogical Sensibilities

1 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Marion Porath

After nearly a century of development, gifted education has evolved into a complex educational discipline with well thought out pedagogy and research agendas. However, while the number of studies escalates, the field as a whole has been criticized for producing fragmented and piecemeal results. One of the reasons for these shortfalls is that the field has invested little in meta-theoretical aspects, such as historical perspectives and philosophical foundations. This article is a comprehensive review and analysis of the conceptual changes and paradigm shifts in gifted education. Three major paradigm shifts in gifted education were identified— demystification (i.e., giftedness as manifested wonders), identification (i.e., giftedness as measurable predictions), and transaction (i.e., effectuation of human possibilities). Presently, there is still an implicit focus on the identification paradigm despite considerable efforts to shift the focus to creating and sustaining appropriate developmental niches for all individuals. Debates in the field are highlighted to provoke discussion of future directions.

After nearly a century of development, gifted education has evolved into a complex educational discipline with systematic research agendas and well thought out pedagogy ( Tannenbaum, 2000 ). Numerous public and private gifted education organizations have been established (e.g., European Council for High Ability, National Association for Gifted Children/in the United States; Chinese Association for Gifted Education in Taiwan); moreover, there are numerous academic journals 1 devoted to the study of giftedness and gifted education, and conferences are routinely organized by communities within the field. In the first decade of the 21st century, close to 3,000 studies were indexed in gifted and/or gifted education in the PsycINFO database ( Dai, Swanson, & Cheng, 2011 ). However, while the number of studies in gifted education escalates, many of these studies have been criticized for producing fragmented and piecemeal results ( Cohen, 1996 ; Renzulli, 2012 ). One of the reasons for this fragmentation could be that the field, as a whole, has invested little in meta-theoretical aspects such as historical perspectives and philosophical foundations ( Cohen, 1996 , 2006 ). As Cohen, Ambrose, and Powell (2000) cautioned, “Without a solid conceptual base and theoretical awareness, researchers and practitioners tend to develop conceptual blind spots and ignore important aspects of giftedness and talent” (p. 331). Emerging as a trend in recent years, some scholars are making efforts to generate meta-theoretical discourses and encourage the community in dialogue on topics such as worldview, ideology, and paradigm shifts (e.g., Ambrose, 2012 ; Heller & Schofield, 2000 ; Mönks, Heller, & Passow, 2000 ). For example, Dai and Chen (2013 , 2014 ) rendered an analytical account of paradigm shifts in gifted education, providing an in-depth analysis of the paradigmatic differences of three major gifted education approaches (i.e., gifted child approach, talent development approach, and differentiation approach). They made explicit the underlying assumptions and goals of each approach and provided deep implications for both research and practice.

Since Kuhn’s (1962/1996 ) landmark explanation of how paradigm shifts constitute the structure of scientific revolution, the term “paradigm” is commonly mentioned in research articles ( Göktürk, 2015 ). In Kuhn’s view, a paradigm shift involved radical changes in how a field conceptualizes itself—changes that were resisted by the established community. Capra (1996) broadened Kuhn’s notion and defined paradigm as “a constellation of concepts, values, perceptions, and practices shared by a community, which forms a particular vision of reality that is the basis of the way the community organizes itself” (p. 6). In other words, a paradigm is the “broadest unit of consensus within a science and serves to differentiate one scientific community (or sub-community) from another. It subsumes, defines and interrelates the exemplars, theories, and methods and tools that exist within it” ( Ritzer, 1975 , p. 9). Therefore, an investigative research paradigm importantly functions as tinted glass through which a researcher perceives, questions, and interprets events. This article’s objective is to go beyond a paradigmatic comparison of approaches with gifted education; it provides a meta-theoretical account of paradigm shifts in conceptual understandings of giftedness and gifted education that can inform research and practice. While this study presents a narrative review ( Collins & Fauser, 2005 ; K. Jones, 2004 ), the process in which the theoretical framework emerged was akin to the generation of a grounded theory ( Glaser, 2002 ; Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ; Holton & Walsh, 2017 ; Lo, 2014a , 2016 ), a heuristic process dependent on constant comparisons and the researcher’s theoretical sensitivity (i.e., field knowledge and capability to synthesize/theorize, see Lo, 2014a , 2016 ). Crucially, these comparisons and sensitivity served as the catalyzing tool for searching and integrating literature in the process of generating themes and seeking theoretical saturation ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ; Holton & Walsh, 2017 ; Lo, 2016 ).

In this heuristic theorizing process, we started with a preliminary paradigm shifts framework outlined in an article published by the first author ( Lo, 2014b ) and used this preliminary understanding as a touchstone for searching and analyzing the literature identified in this first iteration. In this iteration, we included the scholarly work from (a) key contributors to gifted curricula and pedagogies and (b) thinkers whose work constitutes important sources of historical knowledge and conceptual changes in the field. In particular, we expanded our search to include contemporary work on inclusive schooling vis-à-vis gifted education. The body of literature reviewed in this iteration consisted of purposeful database keyword searches (using Academic Search Complete ) and our collective field knowledge. The second-round literature review started when we made connections between epistemology (i.e., knowing) and pedagogy (i.e., learning and teaching). In this iteration of analysis, we included general developments in both academic research and public education and focused on examining the nexuses among these various (yet connected) lines of development to provide a broader perspective that went beyond and above gifted education. After two iterations of analysis, we registered three epistemological strands as the points of departure for comparison and for constructing an account of the historical emergence of gifted education (that is, how mainstream academic and educational movements intersect with shifting concepts of giftedness and influence the development of gifted education).

The paradigm shifts framework of gifted education (henceforth PSF-GT) we present in this article consist of three broad stages in how the concept of giftedness is understood and studied—namely, demystification, identification , and transaction —that are epistemologically distinct from each other. Importantly, the vocabulary of the paradigms was chosen to indicate the embedded teleologies (i.e., purposes for research and/or practices) and an action-oriented ideology. In the following discussion, we elucidate each paradigm vis-à-vis its historical situatedness (e.g., educational and academic movements) and pedagogical sensibilities. To further understanding, we begin with a precursory introduction of PSF-GT (see Table 1 ) before proceeding to a detailed account of explanation. A few decades before, the modern onset of gifted education in the 1920s, giftedness was perceived as a scientific topic under the then dominant influence of positivism. Before giftedness was studied in a systematic way, it was considered as mystical divinity and was often associated with superstition and neuroses. Early studies of giftedness began to demystify the construct; it was considered examinable and therefore could be unpacked and discovered through systematic investigations. During this early context, studies on giftedness were predominantly confined to the pursuit of scientific discovery. However, this scientific enthusiasm did not find a strong foothold in education because the concurrent movement to standardize education (see B. Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2015 ) was concerned more about mass-producing a quality work force than fulfilling individual needs. In the 1920s, the emergence of intelligence tests, in combination with an education movement that urged authenticity in recognizing individual differences via educational placement (see B. Davis et al., 2015 ), set the foundation of modern gifted education. In the 21st century, while identification remains centrally prominent in gifted education and reflects an overarching postpositivist influence, the notion of who may be identified as gifted has been broadened by a confluence of modes of critical inquiry (e.g., epistemological constructivism, social constructionism, critical theory [cf. Cohen, 2006 ; Cohen et al., 2000 ]), and a democratic citizenship education movement (see B. Davis et al., 2015 ) that aims to remove undemocratic constraints (e.g., gender, race, socioeconomic status) and empower individuals who are considered disadvantaged. Furthermore, an emergent alternative interpretation of giftedness that is distinct from an identification-based ideology is drawing attention from scholars. Rather than focusing on identifying students who are gifted, this new interpretation sees giftedness in terms of functional transactions between an individual and his or her environment. In other words, giftedness becomes a pedagogical goal achievable by all rather than measurable predictions for some. This transaction-based paradigm (e.g., Barab & Plucker, 2002 ; Eyre, 2011 ; Hymer, 2009 , 2012 ; Hymer, Whitehead, & Huxtable, 2009 ; Lupart, 2012 ) conceptualizes giftedness as functional conditionality (that should be locally realized) rather than possessed conditions (to be identified). This new wave of thinking corresponds to systemism 2 (see Bunge, 1996 , 2000 ; Capra & Luisi, 2014 ; Choi, 2011 ; B. Davis et al., 2015 ; Pickel, 2011 ; von Bertalanffy, 1968 ; Wan, 2011 ) that abandons the reductionist worldview (i.e., seeing the world in mechanical components) and discerns the (dys)functional relation between environment, agent, and embedded sociocultural structures.

Paradigm Shifts in Gifted Education (PSF-GT).

Early Context: The Emergence of a Demystification Paradigm

Historically, people who possess outstanding abilities have fascinated society. As one can easily imagine, a fledgling hunter or a talented cave painter drew much admiration from his or her tribesmen in a prehistoric society ( Stanley, 1976 ). In Greece, Plato described men with superior intellect as men of gold, distinct from those of silver, iron, or brass. In Plato’s ideal world, these golden children were offered a program that required mastery of science, philosophy, and metaphysics to increase their capacity for leadership ( Freeman, 1979 ; Tannenbaum, 2000 ). In China, starting in the Tang Dynasty (AD 618), child prodigies were sent to a conservatory set by the imperial court where their talents and giftedness could be elevated ( Tsuin-Chen, 1961 ). Dating back to 500 BC, Confucius, the most famous pedagogue in China, proposed that education should be available to all children with programs tailored to individual differences. However, neither Plato’s nor Confucius’s ideas were publicly mandated and implemented. Educational resources in ancient times were available only to the upper class ( G. A. Davis, Rimm, & Siegle, 2011 ; Tannenbaum, 2000 ).

It is clear that eminence and exceptional achievements have always evoked interest; documentation is found in folklore, art, theology, philosophy, and, more recently, natural, and social sciences ( Jolly & Bruno, 2010 ; Ziegler & Heller, 2000 ). Influenced by British empiricist David Hume 3 (1711-1776), Auguste Comte 4 (1789-1857) put forth his influential law of three stages ( Comte, 2009 ) in an effort to depict the intellectual progress of human beings. In the first stage—the theological (or fictitious) stage—humankind understood the world largely through superstition and/or animism. Evolving into the second stage—the metaphysical (or abstract) stage—humankind extended their explanatory modes by appealing to abstract entities or forces (such as momentum). Comte’s final stage is a positive (or scientific) stage. In this stage, scientific thinking was introduced; humankind generated knowledge based on facts derived from observation and experience. The belief was that there were natural laws to which all phenomena were subject. Comte’s broad stages seem to apply to the ways in which giftedness has been imagined and reasoned about in our history. In ancient times, giftedness and talents were interpreted through religious lenses 5 and explained via divinity and mythology ( Freeman, 1979 ; Grinder, 1985 ; Jolly & Bruno, 2010 ; Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 2008 ). Ancient Western cultures, considered talented individuals as people touched by divinity and believed that Muses divinely inspired exceptional work ( Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 2008 ). Gradually, giftedness and talents came to be understood in more abstract terms, such as personal aptitude, extrasensory causes, or excessive neuroses ( Grinder, 1985 ; Passow, Mönks, & Heller, 1993 ; White, 2000 ; Ziegler & Heller, 2000 ). As a case in point, Lombroso (1891) associated geniuses with neuroses that often resulted in pathological manifestations. As the Scientific Revolution ushered in a zeitgeist of positive philosophy and empiricism ( J. Henry, 2004 ), systematic thinking and quantification of variables believed to be associated with intelligence became the framework for understanding giftedness and talents ( Grinder, 1985 ). A paradigm of demystification of giftedness emerged, in which scientists and scholars strived to unpack individual differences through systematic investigation and measurement.

The emergence of the demystification paradigm can be traced back to Victorian scientists’ work on biological heredity, genetics, and species ( Tannenbaum, 1958 ), for example, Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) work on the origin and evolution of species and Gregor Mendel’s (1822-1884) work on laws of inheritance (see Harris, 1923 ). Along the same lines, Francis Galton (1822-1911) researched the implications of Darwin’s theory and assumed a biological and genetic etiology of giftedness. He hypothesized that eminent achievements resulted from one’s intellectual heritage. To test his hypothesis, Galton devised several methods and apparatuses designed to capture the keenness of one’s sensory and functional abilities (e.g., vision, audition, olfaction, tactility, and reaction time). He concluded that giftedness was largely inherited ( Galton, 1869 ). While Galton’s work is considered distasteful today due to the strong connotations of racism, classism, and eugenics, his studies on giftedness did challenge some customary attitudes and mythical thinking about giftedness (e.g., that geniuses were physically unsound and mentally distressed). The systematic anthropometric and biographical methods Galton adopted for investigating giftedness resulted in him being credited as the founding “grandfather” of 20th-century gifted education ( Goldstein, 2012 ; Guilford, 1936 ; Jensen, 2002 ; L. V. Jones & Thissen, 2006 ; Stanley, 1976 ).

The momentum of quantifying individual differences continued in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. While still focused on the goal of understanding and measuring individual differences in intelligence, Alfred Binet (1857-1911) viewed intelligence differently ( Siegler, 1992 ). Unlike his contemporaries, such as Galton (1869 , 1874 ) and Cattell (1890 , 1903 ), who predominantly focused on easy-to-measure sensory and functional abilities, Binet emphasized complex mental processes (e.g., reasoning and comprehension) and treated these mental processes as the main locus of individual differences in intelligence ( Robins, 2010 ; Siegler, 1992 ; White, 2000 ; Wolf, 1973 ). He was appointed by the French government to develop an intelligence test that could be used to identify students who lagged behind benchmarks for learning ( Siegler, 1992 ). In collaboration with Theophile Simon, Binet created the Binet–Simon Scale ( 1904 ) and introduced the idea of mental age to define a child’s intellectual progress in relation to his or her peers ( Fancher, 1985 ; L. V. Jones & Thissen, 2006 ; White, 2000 ). Although Binet’s tests were not intended for gifted children, his contribution was considered epochal because the tests introduced new language for the construct of intelligence and its measurement ( Hollingworth, 1936 ). For this, Binet is commonly recognized as the father of the intelligence test ( Siegler, 1992 ).

Whereas research focused on, or associated with, giftedness was evident in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (e.g., Cattell, 1903 ; Galton, 1869 , 1874 ), educational implications were not. The notion of giftedness was confined to the study of individual differences; pedagogical relevance was not considered. For example, although the word “gifted” was adopted in Galton’s (1869) book Hereditary Genius , it was used to indicate adults who possessed endowed gifts for achieving eminence. Parallel to the emergence of the demystification paradigm, in the Western world a standardized education movement driven by the Industrial Revolution occurred ( B. Davis et al., 2015 ; Dewald, 2004 ); the purpose of education was to provide the immense labor force needed by the increasing number of modernized factories. Conceivably, catering to individual differences could not be a chief goal of education when the operation addressed largely standardized outputs and capacity for mass production.

In sum, the core undertaking of the field in the demystification paradigm was to use scientific methods to unpack the nature of human intelligence. As the research progressed, understanding of giftedness and talents started to grow away from misbeliefs and superstitions.

Modern Onset: The Emergence of the Identification Paradigm

The advent of a quantifiable measuring device for identifying gifted children was crucial to the continuation and refinement of gifted education programs. ( R. G. Miller, 2009 , p. 369)

The confluence of psychometric studies on individual differences and a compulsory education movement created momentum for formal gifted education ( Borland, 2005 ; L. J. Coleman, Sanders, & Cross, 1997 ). With strong roots in empiricism, the gold standard for answering educational research questions became psychometric methods. By the 1920s, assessment of individual differences had become “a well-established means by which educational psychologists could help shape school practices and educational policy” ( Lagemann, 2000 , p. 93). Hollingworth (1938) noted the following:

The greatest contribution made by psychology to education since the turn of the century has been this power to measure minds of greater caliber. . . . The idea of finding the gifted in childhood is therefore not new. It is the power to do so that is new, and that brings to educators the new opportunities and responsibilities which we have been discussing. (p. 306)

Here, Hollingworth (1938) pinpointed the applicability of intelligence tests to pedagogy for students who could be defined as gifted by these measures and benefit from advanced curricula. Concurrently, the standardization of public education neared completion. With the presence of an expanded middle-class, public education progressively became compulsory ( B. Davis et al., 2015 ). As school enrollments increased, diversified student bodies and an escalating multitude of educational needs followed naturally. Educators and researchers started to pay attention to students whose learning needs and speed exceeded a uniform, age-related curriculum ( Robins, 2010 ). Sophisticated psychometric measures influenced the emergence of modern gifted education, partially in response to the pedagogical mission to differentiate curriculum for a range of ability levels ( B. Davis et al., 2015 ; Goldstein, 2012 ; Robins, 2010 ). For example, a preparatory school designed specifically for gifted students in Worcester, Massachusetts was documented as early as 1901 (see G. A. Davis et al., 2011 ). In 1911, the U.S. Bureau of Education reported that about 6% of cities had some form of special programs for gifted children (see Nazzaro, 1977 ). By 1920, approximately two thirds of larger cities in the United States had created some type of program for gifted students ( Colangelo & Davis, 2003 ). Also in the 1920s, the term “gifted” started to appear on the title pages of educational books (e.g., T. S. Henry, 1920 ; Hollingworth, 1926 ; Stedman, 1924 ). These early seeds of gifted education provisions in tandem with the systematic investigation of gifted individuals led by scholars such as Lewis Terman (1877-1956) and Leta Hollingworth (1886-1939) set in motion the work of the field of gifted education.

Following the torch lit by Francis Galton, Terman was passionate about studying gifted students. Combining Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon’s (1904) construct of intelligence as complex reasoning ability and their method of testing intelligence with William Stern’s (1914) concept of intelligence quotient, 6 Terman published revisions of the Binet–Simon Scale (see Terman, 1916 ; Terman & Merrill, 1937 ) that quickly changed the practice of education ( Jolly, 2008 ; Stanley, 1976 ). That is, educators were able to make selections of students based on their performance on intelligence tests and design programs that better addressed the learning needs of students that could not normally be met by a regular curriculum. For many decades, Terman’s intelligence tests were “the standard for ascertaining the mental age and IQ of persons” ( Stanley, 1976 , p. 39). Terman also began a series of longitudinal studies in the 1920s, following his sample of 1,500 children who had an average IQ of 151 ( Kaufman, 2013 ) over decades. At midlife, the “Termites” ( Kaufman, 2013 ) had impressive educational and career achievements and were healthy, socially well adjusted, and very satisfied with life ( Feldman, 1984 ; Kaufman, 2013 ). Terman’s systematic investigation became “the most comprehensive compilation of empirically gathered data on gifted education of its time” ( Jolly, 2008 , p. 28). Essentially, Terman’s longitudinal studies can be considered a paradigmatic shift. His studies set out to dispel the lingering myths and misbeliefs surrounding gifted children and succeeded in putting to rest the images of physically weak and socially inept gifted individuals ( White, 2000 ). That said, his longitudinal studies have also been criticized as elitist and eugenic ( Stoskopf, 2002 ). Contemporary scholars have noted that Terman’s sample was predominantly White and middle-class, which could have accounted for their impressive achievements in later life (e.g., Leslie, 2000 ; Vialle, 1994 ). The sample also was nominated by teachers who favored high achieving well-behaved students, and excluded creative thinkers like Luis Alvarez and William Shockley who went on to win Nobel prizes ( Kaufman, 2013 ). No such distinction accrued to participants in Terman’s study. In historical context, however, Terman’s belief that gifted children could be identified through intelligence tests had significant implications for education and gave gifted education a foothold in academia ( Eyre, 2011 ; Jolly, 2008 ; Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011 ; Vialle, 1994 ). The work by Terman, Hollingworth, and their contemporaries drew attention to the needs of children who are developmentally advanced ( Keating, 1991 ), attention that was largely based in the identification-based ideology that dominated gifted education in the past century. However, practices of identification have undergone several conceptual changes ( Lo, 2014b ), described subsequently.

From Simplicity to Complexity

At the beginning of modern gifted education, giftedness was judged almost solely by IQ and consisted of a very small fraction of the student body. For example, Terman (1925) and Stedman (1924) decided that individuals with an IQ ≥140 should be deemed gifted; Hollingworth (1926) favored 130, whereas Whipple (1919) chose 115. Terman (as cited in Hollingworth, 1926 ) also put forth an IQ-based stratification that depicted the educability of students, from “feebleminded” (below 70 IQ) to “genius or near genius” (above 140 IQ).

Not long after, scholars started to reflect on the limitations of an IQ-based construct of giftedness. As early as the 1920s, Hollingworth (1926) noted the possibilities of giftedness in various domains and argued that students “may be far more excellent in some capacities than others” (p. 202). Later, Bentley (1937) called for advanced curriculum for students who demonstrate aptitude in specific areas such as art, music, or mathematics. More formally, Witty (1958) stated a definition that included general intellectual abilities as well as specific talents (e.g., arts, writing, and leadership) in an annual yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education in the United States. Moreover, creativity—a dimension commonly included as part of the definition of giftedness today (e.g., Mönks, 1992 ; Renzulli, 1978 ; Sternberg, 1996 , 2005 )—started to receive attention in the field of gifted education after Guilford made an APA presidential address on creativity in 1950 . As a case in point, in 1972, when the United States announced its first federal definition, giftedness was defined as:

Children capable of high performance include those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in any of the following areas, singly or in combination:

General intellectual ability
Specific academic aptitude
Creative or productive thinking
Leadership ability
Visual and performing arts
Psychomotor ability. ( Marland, 1972 , p. 2)

This conceptual wave of seeing intelligence in complex multidimensional terms hit its climax when Gardner (1983) proposed a theory of multiple intelligences that included verbal–linguistic, logical–mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal competencies. Gardner (2006) later added naturalistic and existential intelligences, for a total of nine. Each type of intelligence reflects a competency thought to have its own developmental trajectory and unique neural architecture; each also reflects the values of and support provided by different cultures. Gardner criticized the ways in which intelligence had been singularly conceptualized (e.g., Piaget’s [1970] view of intelligence as general operational schema that underpin all thought) and addressed in school (e.g., predominant emphasis on linguistic and logical–mathematical aspects of symbol use).

Contemporary views of giftedness posit that it is dynamic and socially constructed ( Borland, 1997 , 2013 ; Callahan & Hertberg-Davis, 2013 , Lo, 2014b ; Matthews & Foster, 2006 ; E. M. Miller, 2013 ; Sutherland, 2012 ; VanTassel-Baska, 2005 ; Ziegler, Stoeger, & Vialle, 2012 ). Newly emerged theories of intelligence(s) by and large reflect this conceptual trend. For instance, from a pragmatist view and focusing on cognitive functioning, Sternberg (1985 , 1999 ) posited three types of intelligence, namely analytic, synthetic, and practical, which he viewed as functionally different from each other. The cognitive processes underlying each intelligence were hypothesized to account for their functional differences. Of note, despite the common awareness of the dynamic and socially constructed nature of intelligences (e.g., Gagné, 1995 ; Gardner, 1983 ; Mönks & Katzko, 2005 ), disagreements on the definitions of intelligence still prevail in the field. To some, intelligence is still conceptualized as an overarching general ability (g) that is biologically based and predicts success in life (e.g., Carroll, 1993 ; Gottfredson, 1998 , 2002 ; Jensen, 1998 ).

In sum, the early IQ-based definition of giftedness was certainly a product of its time. It was considered the scientific way under the influence of positivism ( Borland, 2005 ; L. J. Coleman et al., 1997 ) in which giftedness was viewed as a natural phenomenon measurable by means of objective tests and rating scales. The evolving complexity and iterations of the definition that we are aware of today, however, reflect an ongoing dialectical understanding of a complex social construct (cf. symbolic interactionism [ Blumer, 1969 ] and social constructionism [ Burr, 2003 ; Crotty, 1998/2011 ]). In other words, the field as a whole is engaging in a collective meaning- and sense-making process of what gifted education can and should be ( Borland, 2005 ; Cramond, 2004 ; Lo, 2014b ).

From Being to Becoming

“Nature gives no gifts. . . . Genetic potentials unfold in interaction with stimulating experiences structured by parents, family, home, schools, teachers, and curricula” ( Feldhusen, 2005 , p. 64). Increasingly, research and practice are moving from a static and absolute notion of who is gifted—or not—to recognition of the importance of the interactions between individuals and the environment that contribute to the competency. There is acknowledgement of the intricate nuances of human development as it unfolds over the life span ( Horowitz, Subotnik, & Matthews, 2009 ) and increased understanding of the complexity of the developmental scaffolding needed for children to develop optimally ( Keating, 2009 ; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000 ). Evidently, there is a change of focus from “being” gifted to “becoming” gifted ( Lo, 2014b , p. 286), largely influenced by developmental psychology and epistemological constructivism (see Ültanir, 2012 ).

In 1930, Vygotsky proposed an important concept, the zone of proximal development, the zone that represents the difference between what children can accomplish independently and what they can accomplish with sensitive support from an adult or more competent peer. In Vygotsky’s view, intelligence is subject to change and is not readily observable without proper scaffolding. Similarly, Fischer and Pipp (1984) noted that children will not demonstrate their optimal level of understanding without sensitive support, a principle that is foundational to Vygotskian-influenced dynamic assessment. Dynamic assessment is not widely practiced in gifted education. However, it does have the potential to inform educators about the nature of scaffolding (cues and types of support) needed by children to achieve optimally. It is also an appropriate strategy to use in supporting the development of the many abilities that relate to human accomplishment and has the potential to contribute significantly to our knowledge of how these abilities are encouraged and sustained across the life span ( Dweck, 2009 ).

Epistemological constructivism brought rigor to our understanding of the processes of “becoming.” Studying the “what” and “how” of children’s thinking—the nature of thinking in different domains, how that thinking is consolidated, integrated, and applied, and how it develops in complexity over time—has led to better understanding of the conceptual underpinnings of thought and the influences that support different developmental trajectories (e.g., McKeough, Genereux, & Jeary, 2006 ; Okamoto, Curtis, Jabagchourian, & Weckbacher, 2006 ; Porath, 2006a , 2009 ). This perspective captures the emergent nature of giftedness ( Porath, 2006b )—an understanding central to moving us more firmly into a focus on “becoming.”

Giftedness is currently viewed as “dynamic, contextual, and emergent” ( Dai, 2010 , p. 21), a view that owes much to developmental psychology, through its study of the startling developmental diversity among children with high IQs ( Horowitz, 2009 ; Lubinski & Benbow, 2000 ; Matthews, 1997 ), systematic investigation of other intelligences (e.g., Case, 1992 ; Liben, 2009 ; Porath, 1996 , 1997 , 2003 ; Winner, 2009 ), and the roles of complexity in the environment ( Barab & Plucker, 2002 ; Hymer, 2009 ; Jackson, 2000 ) and social affordances ( Keating, 2009 ) in supporting optimal development of giftedness and talents. The definition of giftedness has been extended from a narrow perspective (i.e., seeing giftedness as a stable and unchangeable trait) to a more expansive perspective in which giftedness is viewed as taking multiple forms and developing over time ( Morelock, 1996 ). Theoretical models that address potentiality and developmental issues abound in the gifted education literature (e.g., Feldhusen, 1994 , 1998 , 2005 ; Gagné, 1995 , 2003 , 2004 ; Renzulli, 1978 , 1986 , 2005 ; Tannenbaum, 2003 ). While these models address the importance of developmental issues concerning giftedness, they commonly reflect an identification-based ideology. For example, Gagné (1995 , 2003 , 2004 ) proposed the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent that highlights the importance of the amalgamation of natural abilities, intrapersonal catalysts, developmental process, environmental catalysts, and change in a gifted individual’s optimal development. Meanwhile, he also put forth “a precise threshold of 10% prevalence to separate those who should be labeled from those who should not” ( Porath, 2004 , p. 154), further categorizing those who should be labeled into various levels from mild to extreme. Some contemporary views on human development question these arbitrary categorizations and are in favor of creating and sustaining appropriate developmental niches for all individuals (e.g., Horowitz, 2000 ), an aspect discussed later in this article (cf. transaction paradigm).

From Exclusivity to Diversity

A more recent conceptual wave that has occurred in the identification paradigm is aligned with critical theory perspectives in the social sciences and the democratic citizenship education movement ( Ambrose, 2012 ; B. Davis et al., 2015 ; Fay, 1987 ; Lo, 2014b ). This conceptual wave speaks to the inclusion and empowerment of gifted students who are considered disadvantaged and the engagement of researchers and educators in analysis of the injustice and undemocratic constraints implicitly and explicitly embedded in our system. From the outset, gifted education has been criticized as elitist and a contributor to social inequity ( Matthews & Dai, 2014 ; Oakes, 2005 ; Sapon-Shevin, 2000 ; Sutherland & Stack, 2014 ). It is not surprising that the public finds gifted education distasteful if we look into Galton’s (1869) and Terman’s (1925) eugenic research agendas and the later scholarly output that followed their work closely, such as the work of Cravens (1988 , 1991 ), Minton (1988) , and Hunt (1961) . From a social justice perspective, education should provide access to not only knowledge but also opportunities for students ( B. Davis et al., 2015 ). This conceptual wave encourages critical consciousness toward society and envisions new possibilities through empowering gifted individuals who are oppressed in our current society and considered disadvantaged due to structural injustice and historical misunderstanding ( Cohen et al., 2000 ; Lo, 2014b ). In light of this conceptual wave, many field scholars engaged in studying and provoking conversations on issues surrounding diversity and social justice in education, such as gender and sexual orientations (e.g., Hutcheson & Tieso, 2014 ; Maurer, 2011 ; Reis, 1987 , 1995 ; Sedillo, 2013 ); cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds (e.g., Ford, 2004 , 2005 ; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008 ; Omdal, Rude, Betts, & Toy, 2011 ; Worrell, 2014 ; Worrell & Dixson, 2016 ); demographics and geography (e.g., Floyd, McGinnis, & Grantham, 2011 ; Howley, Howley, & Pendarvis, 2003 ); poverty (e.g., Burney, & Beike, 2008 ; Kitano, 2003 ; R. G. Miller & Gentry, 2010 ; Peters & Gentry, 2010 ; Warwick & Matthews, 2008 ); and dual exceptionalities (e.g., Assouline & Whiteman, 2011 ; Callard-Szulgit, 2008 ; Dole, 2001 ; Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, & Stinson, 2012 ; Lo, 2014b ; McCallum et al., 2013 ; Nielsen, 2002 ). Currently, it is commonly believed that educators in gifted education should be mindful of existing and potential constraints posed by our society. Consequently, this conceptual wave has broadened the notion and identification of giftedness.

In 1993 , the U.S. Department of Education revised their definition of giftedness and noted the importance of recognizing gifted pupils from culturally and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and communities.

Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment. These children and youth exhibit high performance capacity in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas, and unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools. Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor. (p. 19, italics added)

In British Columbia, Canada, the definition of giftedness further included students who exhibit dual exceptionality.

A student is considered gifted when she/he possesses demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of exceptionally high capability with respect to intellect, creativity, or the skills associated with specific disciplines. Students who are gifted often demonstrate outstanding abilities in more than one area. They may demonstrate extraordinary intensity of focus in their particular areas of talent or interest. However, they may also have accompanying disabilities and should not be expected to have strengths in all areas of intellectual functioning” ( British Columbia Ministry of Education Special Education Services, 2006 , p. 53, italics added).

To accommodate the notion of broadened inclusion, new approaches have been proposed to help identify gifted students who may not have been recognized by more traditional approaches due to social constraints and/or disadvantage. For example, Wiley and Brunner (2014) suggested using nonverbal intelligence tests to overcome the verbal development problems associated with cultural backgrounds and socioeconomic status, such as the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence ( L. Brown, Sherbenou, & Johnsen, 1997 ), Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test ( Bracken & McCallum, 1998 , 2016 ), Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test ( Naglieri, 2003 ), and Cognitive Abilities Test—Nonverbal subset ( Lohman & Hagen, 2001 ). Gottfredson (2004) and Lohman (2005) both adopted dynamic and flexible definitions and proposed multimodal approaches to address underrepresentation of minorities in gifted identification.

Beyond IQ: Section Summary

Before we can educate the genius, we must discover him in childhood. ( Hollingworth, 1938 , p. 306)

Simply and fittingly, Hollingworth’s words summarize the core thesis of the identification paradigm. Commencing in the 1920s, intelligence tests started an identification-based ideology and enabled the beginning of formal gifted education. While some of the early foci were criticized for promoting elitism and centering on a fixed view of ability ( Borland, 1997 ; Callahan & Hertberg-Davis, 2013 ; Feldman, 1979 , 2003 ; Sapon-Shevin, 2000 ; Sutherland & Stack, 2014 ), conceptual waves that occurred in the past few decades broadened the notion of giftedness (see Figure 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10.1177_0016986217722840-fig1.jpg

A broadened notion of giftedness.

While the identification-based ideology reflects deep-rooted postpositivism (i.e., there are gifted students who await proper identification), the ways in which giftedness is defined have been influenced by some contemporary modes of critical inquiry, such as social constructionism (e.g., Burr, 2003 ), symbolic interactionism (e.g., Blumer, 1969 ), social constructivism (e.g., Vygotsky, 1930 ), and critical theories (e.g., Fay, 1987 ). Consequently, current identification practices include a broader range of students. Of note, this broadened inclusion is different from “inclusive education,” which is discussed in the next paradigm shift.

Today, with greater consideration of diversity and democratization in understanding giftedness, most educators and researchers in the field see giftedness as much more than an IQ cutoff (Borland, 1996; McGlonn-Nelson, 2005 ; Morelock, 1996 ; Sternberg, 1985 ). Corresponding to this broadened notion of giftedness, a teacher’s role has undergone some changes, moving from a more passive role (e.g., a spectator searching for various forms of giftedness and talents) to a more constructive role (e.g., a scaffolder who make efforts to ensure the “becoming” process of giftedness and talents), to an active emancipating role (e.g., an empowerer who intends to amend injustice and lift undemocratic constraints that might have oppressed gifted students considered disadvantaged). While an identification-based ideology is still prevalent in current gifted education practices, an ecology- and system-based paradigm that speaks to an ideology of cultivating gifts rather than identifying gifts has emerged in recent years ( Barab & Plucker, 2002 ; Eyre, 2011 ; Hymer, 2009 ; Hymer et al., 2009 ; Renzulli, 2010 ; Sutherland, 2012 ).

Current Shifts: The Emergence of the Transaction Paradigm

As gifted education becomes more concerned about appropriate programs and services that can bolster achievement in schools for both gifted and other populations and less concerned about precise identification of who is gifted, the emphasis turns then to what works—what programs and services are likely to produce the greatest learning for students? ( VanTassel-Baska & Wood, 2010 , p. 345)

VanTassel-Baska and Wood’s notion of what the primary focus of contemporary gifted education should be highlights of a growing interest in making education gifted, that is, in providing an education that allows all students to have rich and varied educational experiences matched to their interests and abilities, and a growing distaste for identifying a special population who would traditionally be served in a gifted program. In recent years, more researchers and educators have started to reflect critically on the underlying assumptions of an identification-based ontology of giftedness and the practices that follow. First, the strong focus on identification that reflects a reductionist belief that giftedness is something that a child either possesses or not has been challenged ( Borland, 2005 , 2009 ; Eyre, 2011 ; Hymer, 2009 ; Lupart, 2012 ; Lupart & Webber, 2012 ; Matthews & Dai, 2014 ; Plucker & Barab, 2005 , Porath, 2012 ); identification-based practices reflect an understanding of giftedness as an either/or trait, rather than a dynamic state based on learning needs in relation to the environment in which a student is situated. In other words, giftedness has been considered as a fixed normative condition (that awaits proper identification) rather than fluid conditionality that speaks to the relational learning needs that arise from mismatches between a learner and a learning environment. Second, the extent to which the gifted label helps in facilitating communication between research and practice has also been questioned ( Borland, 2009 ; Eyre, 2011 ; Lo, 2014b ; Peters & Matthews, 2016 ; Sutherland, 2012 ) given its educationally nondescript nature ( Peters, Kaufman, Matthews, McBee, & McCoach, 2014 ). Moreover, and perhaps more important to some, the tenability of identification-based practices has also been challenged on axiological grounds. For instance, the question of whether the label implies elitism and entrenches social inequality has been raised, as has the question of whether the field is progressing in the ways in which our societies and academic communities are evolving. “This simplistic dichotomization of humanity into two distinct, mutually exclusive groups, the gifted and the rest (the average? the non-gifted? the ungifted?), is so contradictory to our experience of life” ( Borland, 2013 , p. 75). Eyre (2011) also argued that while the label can sometimes be perceived as confirmatory and enabling, the very existence of the label also has, even though unintentionally, detrimental effects on those judged as “not-gifted” (such as a lowering of confidence). Similarly, Jackson (2000) raised the question of whether we should direct our efforts to addressing categorization, efforts that have not moved the field forward, or to designing rich environments with emphases on social justice and social equality that benefit all children. In fact, many scholars have argued that the gifted label should be attached to programs rather than individuals (e.g., Borland, 2013 ; Matthews & Dai, 2014 ; Olszewski-Kubilius & Calvert, 2016 ; Peters et al., 2014 ).

Reflecting on the limitations and constraints of identification-based practices, some field scholars started to engage in generating social constructionist and nonnormative discourses of giftedness. By decoupling giftedness from the either-or reductionist psychometric model that simplifies giftedness as a static condition, emerging thoughts on giftedness see it: (a) as a socially constructed entity that constantly evolves with our society (i.e., different forms of giftedness emerge in different times and/or societies), (b) as an inclusive nonnormative guiding framework that seeks out each individual’s unique giftedness and talents, and (c) as a recursive person-in-situation realization that depends on the complexity of a system and the dynamism between an individual and his or her environment. This emerging nonreductionist view corresponds well to systemism—a worldview that sees everything as a system or a part of a system (cf. Banathy, 1992 ; Banathy & Jenlink, 2004 ; Bunge, 1996 , 2000 , 2004 ; Choi, 2011 ; B. Davis et al., 2015 ; Pickel, 2011 ; Wan, 2011 ). According to systemism, systems include features (e.g., interactions, relations, and mutual interdependencies) not possessed by their mechanical components. To put it simply, systemism embraces the Aristotelian notion of “the whole is greater than the sums of its parts.” While still adhering to a realist ontology ( Choi, 2011 ; Wan, 2011 ), systemism holds a relational epistemology that intends to understand the world in a more-than-mechanical way. In accordance, the world is perceived as a network rather than a machine, metaphorically speaking ( Capra & Luisi, 2014 ; Choi, 2011 ). In this new light of relational epistemology, giftedness is no longer approached as a self-contained psychometric entity/trait; rather, it is perceived as a fluid social construct that reflects the sociocultural values in a given time and context (a case in point is the current strong focus on the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics giftedness initiatives in North America). While giftedness is epistemized with systemic/relational thinking, the ideology of gifted education also switches from “education for the gifted” to “education that is gifted.”

Barab and Plucker (2002) rendered a convincing account of gifted education based on ecological psychology (see Barab & Roth, 2006 ; Gibson, 1977 , 1986 ; Keating, 2009 ; Lave & Wenger, 1991 )—a branch of psychology that accentuates systemic thinking. Barab and Plucker abandoned the normative notion of giftedness and espoused a person-in-situation epistemological framework that regards giftedness as a product of functional relations between a student and the environment in which he or she is situated. To accentuate the interactive nature of the realizations of possible functional relations, they adopted a relational terminology, such as environmental affordances and individual effectivities. According to Gibson (as cited in Barab and Plucker, 2002 ), an affordance is “a specific combination of properties of an environment, taken with reference to an individual, that can be acted upon” (p. 169), and reciprocally, an effectivity is “a specific combination of properties assembled by an individual, taken with reference to the environment, that allows for the dynamic actualization of a possibility for action” ( Barab & Plucker, 2002 , p. 169). In light of this “situated view” ( Plucker & Callahan, 2014 , p. 392), giftedness and talents are no longer perceived as static qualities awaiting identification and interventions. Instead, giftedness and talents are perceived as socioculturally constructed values, and the aim of education is to create various affordances, whether concrete or abstract, that help meet students’ effectivity profiles. For example, a student with an effectivity profile of strong logical–mathematical dispositions would benefit from the current educational milieu in North America that focuses strongly on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education ( Kettler, 2016 ). Every society endorses an affordance network that may or may not recognize a student’s effectivity set (one can simply imagine what would have happened if Mozart had not been born in a society that valued the importance of music).

Hymer (2012) proposed the GRACE model of gift creation (a reincarnated version of Hymer’s G-T CReATe model proposed in 2009). While Hymer (2009 , 2012 ) and his colleagues ( Hymer et al., 2009 ) did not generate an account of ontological discourse, the GRACE model of gift creation highlights the complex and dynamic process of gift transaction in a given social context and sees giftedness as a shared nonnormative quality among pupils. To capture the essence of gift transaction, Hymer composed his GRACE model with five verb form imperatives: Grow, Relate, Act, Challenge, and Exert. The model adopts a growth-focused and incremental approach to intelligence and argues that optimal growth happens when one or more of the following factors are present: good relational rapport, active participation in learning, dialectical/contradictory moments that present challenges, and a lasting motivation and persistence to exert one’s best.

The development of the gift transaction paradigm is in an embryonic stage. Essential elements that constitute the paradigm, such as definitions and curricular options, are still emerging and not easily found in the gifted literature. In terms of definitions, Eyre (2011) adopted a goal orientation point of view and sees giftedness as an end point rather than a starting point. More specifically, Barab and Plucker (2002) characterized giftedness and talents as “a set of functional relations distributed across person and context, and through which the person-in-situation appears knowledgably skillful” (p. 174). In other words, giftedness and talents are emphasized as “the dynamic transactions among the individual, the physical environment, and the sociocultural context” ( Barab & Plucker, 2002 , p. 174, italics added). Giftedness and talents are viewed as an optimal interactualized transaction between an individual and his or her environment—a dynamic proposition that distinctly departs from an identification-based dichotomous proposition ( M. R. Coleman, 2013 ). In short, the essential undertaking of the gift transaction paradigm is to create a learning context that can afford students opportunities to transact their effectivity sets into giftedness.

In terms of services and provisions, two general directions that speak to the situated view of giftedness have been proposed. First, the importance of a rich context that will address and afford the multitudes of talents and abilities that come with the diverse body of students has been highlighted. For example, Barab and Plucker (2002) proposed that educators should “exercise the environment so that it contains numerous opportunities for action for an individual with the requisite abilities to act on these opportunities” (p. 167). Focusing on promoting the occurrence of functional transactions between an individual’s effectivities and the affordances of an environment, Barab and Roth (2006) emphasized the importance of designing a curriculum-based ecosystem wherein rich contextual specifics are provided to engage learning and life–world relevance (i.e., real-world problem solving) is embedded to inspire future planning. Interestingly, Barab and Plucker (2002) resituated Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model (see Renzulli, 1977 ; Renzulli & Reis, 1997 ), a gifted education model developed in the 1970s during the identification paradigm, and demonstrated its relevance in the new paradigm by arguing that gifted education pedagogy can bring about individuality and uniqueness in all students through providing rich and broad learning experiences that enhance and create talents, a strong feature of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model.

Second, field curriculum developers are proposing curricula that address the concept of conditionality of giftedness by offering appropriately differentiated instruction for students who have advanced learning needs. For example, Peters and Matthews (2016) avoided the term gifted and adopted “advanced academics” (p. 55) instead to highlight the mismatch between learning needs and local district curriculum. In the advanced academics model, Peters and Matthews proposed the adoption of a Differentiation Educational Plan to address (locally relational) advanced learning needs regarding an academic subject/discipline, such as language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Similarly, VanTassel-Baska and Wood (2010 ; see VanTassel-Baska, 1986 , for the foundation of this model) designed the Integrated Curriculum Model in which a student’s level of readiness for more advanced work is evaluated by a set of differential standards. This model implies that “ableness” is a topic- and time-bound state, rather than an ascribed prediction. Also focusing on differentiation strategies, Tomlinson et al. (2008 , 2009 ) put forth the Parallel Curriculum Model that accentuates four interrelated yet parallel designs for organizing curriculum: Core (content understanding), Connections (interdisciplinary network), Practice (methods and skills), and Identity (content mastery as self-actualization). In Parallel Curriculum Model, all learners should have the opportunity to experience all these facets of knowledge and the curriculum should support a student’s developing expertise through ascending levels of intellectual demand. Moreover, some researchers in the field (e.g., Bell, Taylor, McCallum, Coles, & Hays, 2015 ; E. F. Brown & Abernathy, 2009 ; M. R. Coleman, 2013 ; M. R. Coleman & Hughes, 2009 ; Hughes & Rollins, 2009 ; Johnsen, 2011 ; McCallum et al., 2013 ; Pereles, Omdal, & Baldwin, 2009 ; Rollins, Mursky, Shan-Coltrane, & Johnsen, 2009 ) applied Response to Intervention (see Batsche et al., 2005 ), an emerging inclusive pedagogy, to cater to the learning needs of students who are more able.

As systemism urges us to perceive phenomena in terms of dynamic connectedness, relationships, patterns, and context, the construct of giftedness is gradually coming to be understood in this light. These emerging concerns of giftedness and gifted education speak to “interdependent conditionality” rather than “identifiable conditions.” Seeing giftedness as a complex system also poses challenges to educators in which they have to proactively create learning pathways by better understanding students’ effectivities and constructing an environment with sufficient affordances to recognize and nurture these effectivities. In light of this emergent thinking, the focus of gifted education has switched from “giftedness identification” to “giftedness transaction”—that is, recognizing the sociocultural nature of giftedness and focusing on creating an educational environment with affordances that effectuate the multitudes of giftedness and talents. In other words, gifted education is shifting gears from “education for the gifted” to “education that is gifted” to ensure every student is properly challenged.

Closing Remarks

For changes to take place, we need to recognize how our taken-for-granted way of thinking from within the discipline’s meaning-making system impacts the educational process in perhaps unintended ways. ( Gallagher, 1999 , p. 69)

The field of gifted education is part of a larger system of global evolution in education; undergoing paradigm changes is natural ( Cohen et al., 2000 ). This article provided a synthesized review of gifted education and research over the past century. We proposed a meta-theoretical paradigm shifts framework (PSF-GT) that consists of three distinct patterns of ideology, namely demystification, identification, and transaction. These patterns were explicated through historical events, educational and academic movements, and theories within and beyond the field. Through discerning these paradigm shifts, we noticed an escalating trend of inclusiveness (i.e., broadened notions of what giftedness is) and a gradual development of proactiveness (i.e., teachers become more involved with giftedness and talent development) in gifted education.

There are caveats to the article that should be considered before proceeding to the conclusion. First, while PSF-GT was constructed by examining changes in research, policies, and practices vis-à-vis shifts that have occurred in education and academia, it is not suggested that these are the only shifts that merit consideration. Second, although the paradigm shifts are presented as distinct stages that mirror chronological development, we by no means suggest that these shifts occur in abrupt and sudden ways. Rather, there are overlaps and co-occurrences (as illustrated in Figure 2 ) as no new paradigm occurs in a vacuum. A new paradigm is always based on the reflections on and critiques of a previous paradigm (or paradigms). We see paradigm shifts as a healthy evolution in our field in which they have broadened our horizons in understanding what giftedness is and/or what makes giftedness. In fact, many of us might adopt a mixture of different ideologies in our practices, knowingly or unknowingly. Third, it is important to note that we recognize the value and justification of each ideology in light of its historical context because each is a product of place and time. Last but not least, it is not our intent to propose PSF-GT as “the way” to see paradigm shifts in the field. Instead, the article renders an alternative approach for examining paradigm shifts in the field that adds to those put forth by many other field scholars (e.g., Cohen et al., 2000 ; Dai & Chen, 2013 , 2014 ; Matthews & Dai, 2014 ; Matthews & Foster, 2006 ; Tannenbaum, 2000 ; Ziegler & Phillipson, 2012 ; Ziegler, Stoeger, & Vialle, 2012 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10.1177_0016986217722840-fig2.jpg

Overlaps and co-occurrences in the evolving paradigm shifts.

As Matthews and Foster (2006) noted, “A strong foundation gives us the solid footing that we need in order to define and pursue meaningful goals, and connect with revitalizing visions of possibility” (p. 64). We believe that PSF-GT can provide big-picture guidance for coordinating meaningful research and practice. That is, through a better understanding of the nature of paradigm shifts in the field, practitioners and policy makers will be able to (a) discern and justify the ways in which their work fits into broader educational and societal contexts and (b) generate meaningful goals and productive actions which are philosophically and theoretically grounded. We also hope this article stands as an opportunity for researchers to reflect on the progress that we have made in the field and suggest new research directions that address current issues and challenges. All in all, we see our work on paradigm shifts as part of an ongoing “philosophical meta-discourse” ( Cohen et al., 2000 , p. 334) that inspires productive actions and helps the field further clarify the scope and scale of gifted education.

Author Biographies

C. Owen Lo is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education at The University of British Columbia where he directs gifted education programs and teaches courses in gifted education and creativity. His current research is focused on policy analysis, narrative review, inclusive gifted education, educational labeling, and the development of teacher training programs.

Marion Porath is a professor emerita at The University of British Columbia. Her current research interests are the development of giftedness across the life span and arts-based approaches to studying giftedness.

1. For example, Creativity Research Journal, Exceptionality, Gifted Child Quarterly, Gifted Educational International, High Ability Studies, Journal for the Education of the Gifted , and Roeper Review , to name a few.

2. Systemism in this article speaks to “soft” systems theories qua philosophy of (social) science and functions as an analytical paradigm or a set of heuristics. On the other hand, “hard” systems theories refer to substantive explanatory theories predominantly mathematically based and technology-oriented, such as cybernetics (theory of control systems), chaos theory, and game theory (see Pickel, 2011 ).

3. David Hume was among the first British empiricists. He argued that humans can have knowledge only of the objects of experience and the relations of ideas (see Hume, 1739/2000 ).

4. Auguste Comte is regarded as the founder of sociology and the most important popularizer of positive philosophy ( Crotty, 1998/2011 ; Delanty & Strydom, 2003 ; Turner, 2003 ).

5. Both Plato in Greece and Confucius in China referred to exceptionalities as heavenly qualities ( Ziegler & Heller, 2000 ).

6. Stern determined mental age by test performance, that is, a 7-year-old who performed like a 9-year-old was said to have a “mental age” of 9. Stern divided mental age by chronological age and multiplied the result by 100 to achieve the IQ.

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

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

Skip to content
Skip to search
Staff portal (Inside the department)
Student portal
Key links for students

Other users

Forgot password

Notifications

{{item.title}}, my essentials, ask for help, contact edconnect, directory a to z, how to guides, high potential and gifted education, the research.

The Revisiting Gifted Education literature review produced by the department’s Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) provides a synthesis of the evidence base that supports the development and implementation of the policy.

CESE’s website includes a broad range of resources and professional learning on related education research and effective practices.

Business Unit:

Educational Standards

UPDATED FOR 2022 - INCLUDES NEW PRESENTATIONS, SPEAKING NOTES, RESOURCES AND VIDEOS FOR TIER 1 AND 2

Leading learning for high potential and gifted students

Tier 1 resources.

This page highlights the variety of resources that are available to support ongoing implementation of the HPGE Policy throughout the four year school planning cycle 2021-2024.

The material on this page is at the 'Tier 1' level and designed to support schools and networks who are in the policy familiarisation and planning stage of implementation.

For Tier 1 'PowerPoints and speaking notes', as well as 'videos and animations', use the other tabs at the top right of this page.

Tier 1 resources (description below)

High Potential and Gifted Education Policy (PDF download)

The High Potential and Gifted Education Policy applies to all NSW public schools, teachers, and students.

The policy will be operating in all public schools in NSW from the 27 January 2021, aligning with the new four-year school planning cycle.

Schools do not need to create their own school 'policy' for high potential and gifted students.

Revisiting gifted education - literature review, audio paper, podcast, PL and poster

The 'Revisiting Gifted Education' literature review (produced by CESE) provides a synthesis of the evidence base that supported the development and supports the implementation of the policy. There are numerous ways schools can engage with this review:

Revisiting gifted education literature review

Revisiting gifted education audio paper

Revisiting gifted education podcast

Revisiting gifted education MyPL course

Revisiting gifted education poster

HPGE web-section

Access support, advice and resources on high potential and gifted education through a comprehensive and dedicated web-section.

HPGE web-section

HPGE Tier 1 Professional Learning

Professional learning is available to support leaders and teachers to effectively implement the High Potential and Gifted Education (HPGE) Policy towards excelling.

Tier 1 professional learning assists school leaders and teachers with policy familiarisation and planning . There are a range of differentiated and flexible options.

HPGE Professional learning options

HPGE leaders' course (AC00017) - MyPL enrolment

HPGE teachers' course (NR33674) - MyPL enrolment

HPGE Entrée course (AC00513) - MyPL enrolment

HPGE Canapés (6 options) - MyPL enrolments

HPGE Evaluation and Planning tool

The High Potential and Gifted Education Policy Evaluation and Planning Tool supports school leaders to evaluate and plan for the integration of the HPGE Policy into Strategic Improvement Plans through alignment with the School Excellence Framework.

This interactive tool provides a framework for school leaders to gather evidence and evaluate their current procedures, programs and practices. The tool incorporates research and provides an avenue for school leaders to attach file evidence and review their progress over time.

HPGE Illustrations of practice

Access a variety of films, animations, podcasts and written student stories designed to support schools to implement high potential and gifted education within their contexts.

Illustrations of practice

HPGE Early Adopter schools (part 1 and 2)

Access familiarisation and planning material that follows the Early Adopter schools as they begin their unique policy implementation journeys.

HPGE Early Adopter schools (part 1)

HPGE Early Adopter schools (part 2)

HPGE Differentiation Adjustment tool

The HPGE Differentiation Adjustment tool provides a 'toolkit' of differentiation adjustments, strategies and examples of applications designed to support the learning needs of high potential and gifted students.

HPGE state-wide staffroom

The HPGE state-wide staffroom is a professional network that offers the latest advice, resources and information about HPGE. Join now by completing our brief access survey!

HPGE Yammer group

The HPGE Yammer group is a professional network that offers the latest advice, resources and information about HPGE. Join now!

HPGE staff development day (2021 package)

Released in term 1, 2021, this legacy resource contains a 10 part micro-learning video series which provides an overview of the Tier 1 (policy familiarisation and planning) suite of support available to schools.

HPGE SDD package

Tier 1 - Implementation and Progress Monitoring examples

This example describes HPGE Policy Implementation as an initiative aligned to Strategic Direction 2: Excellence in Learning.

To access this google document, please ensure you are logged into your Department google acount, e.g. [email protected]

IMAGES

High quality-education-literature-review-example
Introduction to Gifted Education
PPT
revisiting gifted education literature review
The History of Gifted Education by on Prezi Next
Revisiting gifted education poster

VIDEO

Gifted Movie Review
Gifted Education Process
Gifted Education Process
Five Favourite Closing Lines

COMMENTS

Revisiting gifted education
Gifted students can have a level of cognitive function typical of students several years older, with high levels of fluid thinking, reasoning and working memory function. Teaching programs, feedback, deliberate practice, and opportunities to access advanced learning are all necessary to help gifted learners achieve at a high level and develop ...
PDF Literature Review
This literature review synthesises the best available research evidence on the education of gifted and high potential students. It provides guidance on how schools and teachers can best ensure that all learners - regardless of their background - have the greatest opportunity to reach their educational potential. 2.
Revisiting gifted education literature review
This three-part audio paper summarises the gifted education research base. It synthesises the best-quality available research into the learning characterisitics of gifted students. It also provides summaries of the research on effective practices in gifted education for schools and teachers. Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation.
Revisiting gifted education
Gifted students can have a level of cognitive function typical of students several years older, with high levels of fluid thinking, reasoning and working memory function. Teaching programs, feedback, deliberate practice, and opportunities to access advanced learning are all necessary to help gifted learners achieve at a high level and develop ...
PDF Revisiting gifted education
Revisiting gifted education. SUMMARY. Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. Background. This literature review summarises the gifted education research base. It synthesises the best-quality available research into . the learning characteristics of gifted students. It also provides summaries of the research on effective practices in gifted
Giftedness and gifted education: A systematic literature review
The present study aims to discuss the state of the art inherent in pedagogical-didactic research on the education of gifted students. To this end, a systematic review of scientific texts published between 2011 and 2021 was carried out. The present article is organized as follows: introduction to the topic; definition of the objectives, research questions, and methodological protocol; selection ...
Revisiting gifted education : literature review
Revisiting gifted education : literature review / author: Dr Ben North and Kate Griffiths Creator North, Ben Created/Published Sydney, NSW : Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation, 2019 View Catalogue
Giftedness and gifted education: A systematic literature review
The present study aims to discuss the state of the art inherent in pedagogical-didactic research on the education of gifted students. To this end, a systematic review of scientific texts published between 2011 and 2021 was carried out. The present article is organized as follows: introduction to the topic; definition of the objectives, research ...
Assessment in Gifted Education: A Review of the Literature From 2005 to
Jae Yup Jung, PhD, is a senior lecturer, a GERRIC senior research fellow, and a former Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA) Fellow in the School of Education at The University of New South Wales.The focus of his research is on the decision-making of gifted adolescents on topics such as careers, university entrance, and friendships, usually incorporating ...
Culturally Relevant Leadership in Gifted Education: A Systematic
The purpose of this article is to provide a systematic review of the literature on leadership, systemic reform, and identification and services in gifted education for culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) K-12 students in the United States. ... Effective practices for identifying and serving English Learners in gifted ...
Revisiting gifted education
This literature review summarises the gifted education research base. It synthesises the best-quality available research into the learning characteristics of gifted students.
Paradigm Shifts in Gifted Education: An Examination Vis-à-Vis Its
After nearly a century of development, gifted education has evolved into a complex educational discipline with systematic research agendas and well thought out pedagogy (Tannenbaum, 2000).Numerous public and private gifted education organizations have been established (e.g., European Council for High Ability, National Association for Gifted Children/in the United States; Chinese Association ...
Revisiting gifted education literature review
This three-part audio paper summarises the gifted education research base.
High potential and gifted education
The research. The Revisiting Gifted Education literature review produced by the department's Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) provides a synthesis of the evidence base that supports the development and implementation of the policy. CESE's website includes a broad range of resources and professional learning on related ...
Assessment in gifted education: A review of the literature from 2005 to
Assessment is a crucial component of gifted education. Not only does it facilitate the recognition of the potential and specific needs of gifted students, it also monitors the progress and growth of gifted students, and allows for the evaluation of gifted education programs. In the present review, we synthesize the literature on assessment in gifted education published in the period from 2005 ...
PDF Gifted and Talented Education: A Review of Relevant Literature
Teaching the Gifted and Talented: Options and Best Practice Options Some of the deepest controversy in gifted education centers around which method of education is best, both in terms of academic effectiveness in given areas of study and social and emotional growth. A
HPGE DEL/PSL package
Revisiting gifted education - literature review, audio paper, podcast, PL and poster. The 'Revisiting Gifted Education' literature review (produced by CESE) provides a synthesis of the evidence base that supported the development and supports the implementation of the policy.
PDF Revisiting gifted education poster
CESE is focused on supporting decision-making in education delivery and development with strong evidence. education' is also a. The 'Revisiting gifted education' literature review summarises the gifted education. MyPL course. research base. It synthesises the best-quality available research into the learning. Search 'CESE'.
What works in gifted education ? a literature review
This review begins by acknowledging some of the larger debates in the field of gifted education and provides brief summaries of major conceptual frameworks applied to gifted education, dividing them into three categories: frameworks focused on ability, framework focused on talent development, and integrative frameworks. Expand
HPGE DEL/PSL package
Revisiting gifted education - literature review, audio paper, podcast, PL and poster. The 'Revisiting Gifted Education' literature review (produced by CESE) provides a synthesis of the evidence base that supported the development and supports the implementation of the policy. There are numerous ways schools can engage with this review:
PDF Evaluation and planning tool
→ supporting research (from CESE's Revisiting Gifted Education literature review) → suggested examples to assist with implementation. General and domain-specific evidence and examples are suggested to support . both evaluation and planning across the diversity of NSW Public schools P-12.
HPGE research
The Revisiting Gifted Education literature review produced by the department's Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) provides a synthesis of the evidence base that supports the development and implementation of the policy.