daniellecoughlinwm.wmwikis.netdaniellecoughlinwm.wmwikis.net/file/view/coughlin+final… · web...

Danielle Coughlin G80 Final Exam

Danielle Coughlin Final Exam

G 80 12-13-12


Question #4

Underachievement is a not an unfamiliar word in the classroom or within families and

communities. In fact, I heard it repeatedly under various aliases throughout my entire public

education. An individual exhibiting underachievement might be called an underachiever and

interestingly enough the thesaurus provided many of the less clinical pseudonyms of

underachievement that I found myself familiar with. These include: failure, bum, might-have-

been, nonperformer, loser, deadbeat and my personal addition “not living up to your potential”.

It is clear that those both within and beyond the field of academia understand the situation of

underachievement but a specific academic definition of this major research dilemma remains

illusive. In order to begin addressing the problem of student underachievement in gifted students

both constructs of giftedness and underachievement require an explicit definition. Unfortunately,

both giftedness and underachievement lack a universally agreed upon definition (Reis&

McCoach, 2000).

Before the authors provide a definition of their own, they reflect upon those already in

existence. Underachievement is typically defined as a discrepancy between ability and

achievement (Davis, Rimm & Seigle, 2011; Reis & McCoach, 2000). However, beneath this

conceptual umbrella three main themes exist (Reis & McCoach, 2000). The first theme portrays

the discrepancy between potential and performance. The second views the underachievement

relation between ability and achievement as a discrepancy between predicted achievement and

actual achievement (Reis & McCoach, 2000). A failure to self-actualize, that is, a failure to use

and develop one’s given potential without reference to other external criteria summarizes the

third concept (Reis & McCoach, 2000).


Reis and McCoach (2000) provide an operational definition consistent with a discrepancy

between expected achievement and actual achievement. Standardized achievement test scores,

cognitive, or intellectual ability assessments measure expected achievement, while class grades

and teacher evaluations constitute for attained achievement. Furthermore, underachievement

must persist over an extended period of time and may not be a result of diagnosed learning

disability. The only difference between underachievement in the general and gifted populations

is that the gifted population must demonstrate a “superior” score on measures of expected

achievement. The difference between gifted underachievement and general is not particularly

quantified.

As with all appropriate identification procedures, the procedure to identify an individual as

underachieving should coincide with the definition of underachievement. Uniformed

identification of underachievement proves challenging with varied and imprecise definitions

(Davis et al., 2011; Reis & McCoach, 2000). Despite the instability of the definition,

identification should address the mutually agreed upon theme of significant discrepancies

between a student’s classroom achievement and his or her measured ability on standardized tests

(Reis & McCoach, 2000). Unusually high test scores on standardized tests that do not correlate

with a student’s classwork serves as an indicator for underachievement (Davis et al., 2011). The

degree of discrepancy is often left to interpretation, but those attempting to identify

underachievers in the gifted population should be wary of age/performance discrepancies (Reis

& McCoach, 2000). Gifted students are generally expected to perform at grade level. By

restricting the discrepancy to students that perform at a grade level below ability would distort

the discrepancy and result in under identification of gifted underachievers (Reis & McCoach,

2000).


Test scores, flawed by unavoidable error in nature, may also prove problematic when

identifying gifted underachiever. Underachieving may actually affect a child’s performance on

an ability test. The attenuated test score may minimize the discrepancy resulting in further under

identification of underachieving gifted students (Davis et al., 2011). In addition to discrepancies

in test scores, observations of the student should be included as criteria for indices of

underachieving gifted students (Davis et al., 2011). A student might be suffering from test

anxiety or fear of failure and observations may be the only means to account for such.

Observations allow for teachers to note specific classroom behaviors and comments that indicate

the child has greater gifts than he or she is demonstrating (Davis et al., 2011; Reis & McCoach,

2000).

Gifted underachievers are a heterogeneous population. Though researchers have attempted

to develop lists of traits to identify an underachiever, students will vary by trait with little

consistency (Reis & McCoach, 2000). However, several tests have been developed to identify

characteristics commonly associated with underachievement and these can serve as an indication

for the need of further evaluation (Davis et al., 2011). These characteristics include: low intrinsic

or extrinsic value toward school, low self-esteem, poor self-efficacy, aversion toward authority,

competition domination and avoidance, and unattainable perfectionism (Davis et al., 2011; Reis

& McCoach, 2000). Though the characteristics vary, teachers aware of the common traits of

underachievement may provide more meaningful observations (Davis et al., 2011).

Proper identification is essential if practitioners are to provide the support and services

that underachieving students need (Davis et al., 2011). Support, services, and interventions are

means to address underachievement in gifted students and potentially reverse its effect. The

Trifocal model designed by Sylvia Rimm is one approach to reversing underachievement in


gifted children. The Trifocal model has six steps and requires the collaboration of the family and

school for implication.

The first step of the Trifocal model involves the gathering of information on the

underachieving child. The child is assessed for ability, skills and observed behaviors during

testing. Interviews are also conducted with the family members and student to gather further

information on a child’s underachieving behaviors and enforcers at home (Davis et al., 2011).

During the second step, parents and teachers meet to discuss the analysis of the child. It is

important to speak positively when sharing the child’s results and tendencies, both parties will

need to work together to ensure that problem patterns of behavior are not supported. Further

conferences of accountability will need to be maintained throughout the intervention (Davis et

al., 2011).

The goal of the third step of the Trifocal model is to change the expectations surrounding

the student. This can be difficult to achieve but IQ score and specific anecdotal information can

help those around the child to set realistic, challenging and attainable expectations for the child

(Davis et al., 2011). To help the child reshape his or her self-expectations it is good to review the

child’s previous accomplishes and to help the child compete with his or her own improvements.

To change the self-expectations of an underachieving gifted child they need to be told that those

around them believe in their abilities and want them to succeed (Davis et al., 2011).

A critical turn in achievement for an underachieving child occurs during the most

important stage of the Trifocal model. The discovery of a role model is essential during

development. A child should be matched with an achieving role model. This role model does not

need to be a family member nor be an exclusive role model to that child, but the achieving role

model should encompass several descriptions. The role model should be: nurturing to the


student, be of the same gender, they should share similarities with the child, communicate with

openness and honesty, be able to provide sufficient time to work with the child, and demonstrate

the rewards of being fulfilled with achievement (Davis et al., 2011). Many reversed

underachievers accredit their turn around to a positive role model.

Step five includes correcting the skill deficits that have resulted from previous

underachievement (Davis et al., 2011). Goal oriented tutoring will not take long for the student to

overcome their skill deficits and it will help the student build confidence in his or her new

abilities (Davis et al., 2011). The final step of the intervention model includes modification of

reinforcements. Through the first step behaviors are identified then modified for achievement.

Short term and long term goals can be met with rewards, but consideration should be given to

such rewards (Davis et al., 2011). Rewards should be given promptly and consistently for good

work, never rewarding undesired underachieving behaviors. Rewards should be meaningful to

the child but not so large that other rewards become ineffective (Davis et al., 2011). Some

rewards, such as acceleration and enrichment, can even serve as further achievement motivators

for previously underachieving students.

Underachievement is a readily accessed vocabulary word when describing children. It can

set a child down a path that would undermine his or her given potential. Though the definition is

unclear the goal is not, practitioners are seeking means to address this concern for the youth. The

Trifocal Model provides an excellent method of intervention for the reversal of

underachievement in students and can be readily implemented whenever the buzzword of

underachievement is flying.

Question #1 Born as the twelfth child of fourteen on an Indiana farm, Lewis Terman, The father of the

gifted movement, is arguably the most influential individual in the history of gifted education.


Lewis Terman began his career as a teacher. He returned to school to study psychology, and

finished his career with a twenty-year term as the head of the psychology department at Stanford

University (Minton & Kazdin, 2000). Terman believed that measures of intelligence could be

used to sort individuals and he also believed in a democracy structured by meritocracy off of

such native ability. Terman spent his professional career developing and implementing

psychometric measures as well as studying those that demonstrated advanced cognitive abilities

(Davis et al., 2011; Minton & Kazdin, 2000).

Lewis Terman and his graduate students revised the Binet’s Scale of Intelligence and

published it as the infamous Stanford-Binet. The Stanford-Binet was the first mental

measurement test to include the innovative, intellectual quotient, or IQ (Minton & Kazdin,

2000). The Stanford-Binet gained popularity immediately and through revisions remains a

widely use mental measure today.

Gaining professional acclaim, Terman contributed to the development of the first group

administered intelligence test for the United States Army (Minton & Kazdin, 2000). The tests,

known as the Army Alpha and Beta were used to assign newly enlisted men to appropriate

positions based on cognitive ability. Terman along with other psychologist that contributed to the

Army Alpha and Beta developed an assessment for school age children. This assessment was

used organize children homogeneously by cognitive ability, which became utilized in schools by

the name of tracking. Furthermore, Lewis Terman lead a collaborative effort to develop the

Stanford Achievement Test, the first of its kind (Minton & Kazdin, 2000). In addition to his

study of cognitive ability and achievement, Terman developed the first questionnaire of

masculinity and femininity (Minton & Kazdin, 2000).


Lewis Terman believed that the greatest purpose of testing was the identification of

intellectually gifted children (Minton & Kazdin, 2000). His research contribution was the first

longitudinal study in psychology with the significant sample size of 1,528 subjects (Davis et al.,

2011). The 1,528 subjects were selected by the criteria of a 135 minimum I.Q; they became

known as Termites (Davis et al., 2011). Studying the individuals into retirement years, Terman

and his students dispelled common notion that gifted children were weak, unattractive, and

emotionally unstable. Compared to the control group the Termites were more emotionally and

intellectually mature. At midlife there were few signs of serious mental health problems, and the

Termites demonstrated to be well adjusted and have well-rounded personalities. Terman also

noted acceleration as an effective method of educating the gifted student (Davis et al., 2011).

Lewis Terman stands securely as one of the most significant individuals in gifted

education because of his innovation in the field and his longevity of relevance. He designed

many assessment tools that were the first of their kind, which laid the foundation for all others to

come. Though some of his research conclusions are flawed, he was the first to conduct a study of

that nature. Without Lewis Terman’s influence on assessment, identification, and the personal

attributes of the gifted child, we would posses an altered conceptualization of gifted education.

While Terman was the father of education, Leta Hollingworth is known as the nurturant

mother (Davis et al., 2011). The psychologist, educator, and feminist Leta Hollingworth authored

nine books and more than eighty articles (Klein, 2000). She was widely recognized a vocal

advocate for children and adolescents. Originally teaching studies in the field of special

education, a single incident with an eight-year-old boy altered Hollingworth’s path.

The child took the Stanford-Binet to the limits of the test reporting an I.Q of at least 187;

Hollingworth described the event as an “unforgettable observation” (Davis et al., 2011; Klein,


2000). This led Leta Hollingworth to study and teach fifty gifted New York students (Davis et

al., 2011; Klein, 2000). The questions Leta Hollingworth asked in her studies are the same

questions that perpetuate in gifted education today. The questions include issues regarding the

public schools ability to identify and make provisions for gifted students, the appropriate role of

acceleration and enrichment, and the segregation of gifted students (Klein, 2000).

Hollingworth supported early identification and used an I.Q score of two standard

deviations above the mean to identify giftedness. She also advocated for a multiple criteria

method for identification including interviews, nominations and review of the child’s social and

emotional maturity (Davis et al., 2011). Hollingworth’s research led her to support that students

need a combination of enrichment and acceleration because much of school is a waste of time for

gifted students (Davis et al., 2011; Klein, 2000). As for segregation, Hollingworth advocated for

homogeneous grouping by ability level. However, if that could not be provided, she suggested

differentiation (Klein, 2000).

In addition to the academic needs of gifted students, Leta Hollingworth made early

contributions to gifted children’s emotional needs. She noted that highly intelligent children are

highly vulnerable; their intellectual development is asyncratic with their emotional and physical

development resulting in difficulty making friendships (Klein, 2000). At the Teachers College of

Columbia University, Leta Hollingworth applied her understanding of gifted students needs and

taught the first class in gifted education (Klein, 2000). It is through Leta Hollingworth’s passion

in the field and innovative work with the affective needs of gifted students that she earns her

place as one of the most influential individuals in gifted education.

No contemporary mention of influence would be complete without Joseph Renzulli. New

to the field of gifted education, one could become desensitized to the sight of Renzulli’s name.


Much like the other two influential individuals, Renzulli also started his career as a teacher

(Reoper Review, 2003). Currently he is a professor at the University of Connecticut and the

director of The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (Knobel & Shaughnessey,

2002). His influence is vast, encompassing identification, program planning and instructional

models. Renzulli stresses the importance of identification methods beyond the psychometric test,

as he believes giftedness to be comprised by three overlapping rings called the Three Ring

Conception of Giftedness. The three rings include: above average cognitive ability, creativity and

task management (Class notes). This concept of giftedness is echoed in his Talent Pool strategy.

He reiterates that the most creative people are not always in the top three to five percent of

cognitive ability and a flexible criterion will include more children that need services (Davis et

al., 2011).

The Talent Pool is a component of his Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM), which is

currently the most popular programming model in the world (Davis et al., 2011). The SEM is an

adaptation of Renzulli’s Revolving Door Identification Model (RDIM) and like the RDIM the

curriculum basis is the Enrichment Triad Model. The Enrichment Triad Model provides

practitioners with a means of what they can do for gifted learner (Davis et al., 2011). The three

types of enrichment activities advance in independence and skills to challenge the entire range of

gifted learners.

Renzulli also contributed to the Parallel Curriculum Model (PCM) and the Multiple Menu

Model (MMM) (Davis et al., 2011). The PCM is a curriculum design in which the curriculum is

approached in four different means: the essential nature of the discipline, connections within and

across disciplines, the skills of a practitioner, and a reflection of the discipline within themselves


(Davis et al., 2011). The MMM is also a guide for curriculum design in which the menus assist in

designing the curriculum in various interesting ways (Davis et al., 2011).

Renzulli’s influence can be found in every gifted classroom. He has broadened the

understanding of giftedness and provided educators with means to meet the student’s need in a

way that is both inclusive and challenging. He is a leader of the field and will continue to be so

as he remains ever as active in the field of gifted education. Lewis Terman and Leta

Hollingworth laid the foundation for gifted education and it is modern researchers, like Joseph

Renzulli and future researchers, like those graduating from William and Mary, that will carry on

the study to better understand and meet the needs of gifted students.

Question #2

Internal Consistency is a concept in which a gifted education program aligns the

definition of giftedness, the procedure for identification, and the services provided to identified

students (Class notes). Internal consistency is an essential component of a program if it is going

to be effective and is necessary for any evaluation of the program. Improving the division’s

ability to clearly evaluate the effectiveness of the program remains a national goal for gifted

policy planning (Brown, Avery, Van Tassel-Baska, Worley & Stambaugh, 2006). Due to the

fact that there is no overarching national or state plan for gifted education each school division in

Virginia outlines their procedures for definition, identification and services in a Local Plan for

the Education of the Gifted. Two school divisions in Virginia demonstrate the presence or not of

internal consistency.

Henrico County Public Schools recently adopted a new LEA. In their LEA they state to

provide services for gifted general intelligence, specific academic aptitude and starting in middle

school, for visual and performing arts. The primary components of Henrico County’s philosophy


include: a commitment to multiple criteria for identification across diverse groups of students k-

12, a focus on the social and emotional need of gifted students and their families, and a powerful

curriculum with innovative instruction (Williams, 2011).

The operational definition of giftedness for Henrico County is consistent with the

county’s philosophy of gifted education. The operational definition first recognizes an evidence

of a need as well as evidence of gifted characteristics. While high ability scores on achievement

tests remain a component of the definition of giftedness, evidence of other academic

performance and aptitude are also considered (Williams, 2011). Through an extensive list of

criteria for giftedness, the school demonstrates a commitment to inclusiveness in gifted

education. A second set of criteria exists to appropriately define students as gifted in the Visual

and Performing arts. This criterion also contained exhibiting a need for gifted services and the

student’s expression of gifted characteristics.

Henrico County demonstrated internal consistency during the identification process for

gifted education services. The procedure for identification follows the typical format of

screening, referrals and identification. Screening for both general and specific academic aptitude

begins in Kindergarten, consistent with the philosophy of the school district. The screening

process is consistent with the definition of multiple criteria. In ordinance with the definitions of

giftedness the screening process includes a checklist of characteristics, standardized test data,

students work, and inquiries which can be made by parents, teachers, community members and

even from the student him or herself.

Students that score in the 96th percentile on standardized tests receive an automatic

referral for gifted services. All the individuals that were eligible to submit inquiries may refer

those students that do not meet the automatic referral requirement. For the purpose of


identification the division must utilize three or more of the following criteria: assessment of

appropriate classroom student products, performances or portfolios, rating scale of behavior,

parent/teacher questionnaires, student interview, ability tests, achievement tests, grades, and/or

additional valid and reliable measures. Additional information is needed for identification of

VPA including auditions and performances or products.

In the context of the multiple criteria assessed, the school level (GIA, SAA) or division

level (VPA) will determine the services provided appropriate for the needs of eligible students.

GIA and SAA students in K-3 will receive services within their school from their general

educator and their gifted resource teacher (Williams, 2011). Students in 4-5 services begin to

differentiate themselves by services provided (Williams, 2011). Some GIA and SAA- English

and SAA-math student’s services will continue to be provided within their school by a gifted

resource teacher and their general educator. Other GIA students in grades 4-5 may continue their

services at an elementary zone center (Williams, 2011). Fifth grade students with SAA- Math

may attend a middle school class for mathematics. From middle school forward GIA and SAA

both English and Math may receive services at their neighborhood school or attend a specialty

center with consideration of student needs (Williams, 2011). VPA services will be contained

within the school and summer enrichment programs through grades 6-8. Starting in 9th grade

students with giftedness in VPA will be eligible to attend the center for the arts (Williams, 2011).

The services provided to the students that are identified demonstrate good consistency with

Henrico County’s philosophy and definition.

Additionally, Henrico County Public schools has taken further protocols to ensure that

the internal consistency of the program can be maintained. As the amount of indicated services

increase it would be necessary to either increase training or increase in number of gifted resource


teachers. Henrico County has done both since the previous plan for the education of the gifted.

Full time and part time educators of the gifted Henrico county offers tuition reimbursement for

graduate courses in gifted education, reimbursement reimburse conference and seminar costs,

and plan on providing hourly stipends for summer training. Henrico has done an excellent job in

maintaining internal consistency.

Chesapeake Public Schools provides an example of a school division with poor internal

consistency. The definition of giftedness reads more like a philosophy. Chesapeake states that

they will provide a continuum of services to gifted students grades K-12. The Kingore

Observation Inventory is utilized for the screening process and identification is completed

through the use of multiple criteria (Rhodes, 2012). The LEA states that the Kingore is used in

grades K-2 to provide differentiation for student’s based on their needs. From observations in the

classroom it is clear that this does not happen. No clear description of how they would

differentiate is included, which is not consistent when they describe provided services for general

intelligence in grades K-12. It is not until second grade that students are identified by an

achievement or an ability tests, then organized into the Talent Pool Model on the basis of the test

scores. Though the division states that the identification process is holistic, using multiple

criteria, reviews for identification stem from the talent pool, which results from a child’s

performance on one or both tests. This is not consistent with the stated identification process.

The LEA states that all populations are disaggregated and reviewed separately as

subpopulations (Rhodes, 2012). However there is no elaboration on the implications of the

separate viewing. Additionally, Chesapeake uses an ability and/or an achievement test for

purposes of identification (Rhodes, 2012). There could be huge discrepancies between the

students that score highly on ability and those that score highly on achievement. This is not


consistent with the division’s goal to increase identification of traditionally underserved

populations (Rhodes, 2012). The services listed as provided to gifted students are vague and have

no accountability. There is no consistency with the definition if the services provided for

elementary students are unspecified differentiation in the class, “sometimes” pull out enrichment

activities, and recommendations for summer programs. Middle and High school differentiation

provides more services in the form of specific class assignment options and application to the

International Baccalaureate Program. This initiative is by the students however, and might

underrepresent the typically underrepresented populations.

Internal Consistency is a means to ensure the quality of the program. It would be great to

promise gifted students the moon, but promises must be kept, especially when written on a

formal public document. The most important element in a gifted program is a concise

understanding of giftedness and procedure in which a division provides the means to

successfully identify and provide services. Internal consistency is that organization of well-kept

promises and theoretical understandings.

Question #7

Some theorists have argued that the idea of dual exceptionality is simply children

exhibiting the characteristics of giftedness, including those of intensities and overexcitabilities.

Even these theorists however, stop short of believing that idea to be definitive. Webb, a

researcher with numerous writings regarding the misdiagnosis of ADHD for the gifted

population concluded that some gifted children surely do suffer from ADHD (Webb, 2000). If

there is a population of children that “surely do” have a co condition of ADHD and giftedness,

research should focus not on the numbers but on how to properly identify students an

implications to meet such students needs.


One of the studies conducted to support the idea of misdiagnoses seriously lacks

acceptable validity for its implications. The study involved forty-four first year graduate students

in an introductory course for counseling. The participants were given a brief description of a

student and then were asked one of two questions regarding the underlying explanation of the

student’s behavior (Hartnett, Nelson & Rinn, 2003). One of the questions was open ended while

the other was guided with two choices of ADHD or Giftedness. Results of course skewed to

there being more responses of gifted for the guided question group. The researchers draw a

conclusion that counselors in training do not receive enough study on the similarities between

gifted and ADHD (Harnett et al., 2003). Implication of this research cannot be taken seriously as

anything more than a biased research team with weak internal and external validity. Twenty-two

students per group from one introductory course could never generalize the entire counseling

population. Furthermore, the students were in their first year and they were given only a piece of

hypothetical information about the child. No authentic identification would follow this procedure

making any conclusions or implications irrelevant.

Chae, Kim and Noh (2003) discovered distinct characteristics between the ADHD, gifted,

and twice exceptional populations of students using various standardized test and reports. The

study included results from the T.O.V.A, a continuous performance test that is used for the

diagnosis of ADHD. The Study included two response scales, the Children Behavior Checklist

and the Teacher’s Report Form. Both scales measure the same concept only one for guardians

while the other is for school. Additionally the study included the Korean translation of the

WISC, an intelligence scale with subtests (Chae et al., 2003).

T.O.V.A results between Gifted and Non-gifted students indicated significant differences

in terms of omission errors, commission errors, variability of responses, sensitivity, and ADHD


scores (Chae et al., 2003). Results of the comparison between students that are gifted with

ADHD and non-gifted students with ADHD conclude that gifted children with ADHD made

fewer omission and commission errors. The gifted ADHD students also showed higher

sensitivity. However compared to the gifted non ADHD group the two groups of gifted ADHD,

and non-gifted ADHD, performed equally poorly on response time and response time variability

(Chae et al., 2003). This comparison indicates that response time and response time variability

required for continuous performance tests are distinguishing factors between the gifted and twice

exceptional.

Chae et al. (2003) concluded that when using the WISC, gifted children with ADHD do

not score as well as gifted children without ADHD on the Coding Subtest. This is because the

Coding Subtest requires fine-motor speed coordination and sustained attention. Previous research

indicates that students with ADHD score lower on the Coding, Digit Span and Arithmetic

Subtests (Chae et al., 2003). Again, distinctive differences among the three groups support the

twice-exceptional student as a unique entity. A t-test applied to a social competency scale

demonstrated that while gifted individuals perform lower than non-gifted individuals on social

competency, gifted individuals with ADHD perform even more so lower than their non-ADHD

gifted counterparts (Chae et al., 2003).

Implications from current research indicate that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Yes, gifted children may be misdiagnosed with ADHD, but the twice-exceptional gifted child

with ADHD is also a population within the school system. Proper and improved diagnosis

procedures provide the means to solve the theoretical arguments in the field of gifted education.

Chae et al. (2003) suggest psychologists administer a continuous performance test to measure a

student’s ability to sustain attention when working on a possible ADHD diagnosis of a gifted


child. Unlike the first study completed by Hartnett, Nelson and Rinn in 2003, multiple criteria

and observations are required for any diagnosis. These should be attained with the help of

educators and families. Beyond the identification, it is clear that twice-exceptional children have

a deficit in social skills. This is an implication that needs to be appropriately addressed in school,

by clinical means, or at home (Chae et al, 2003).


References:

Brown, E., Avery, L., Van Tassel-Baska, J., Worley, B. B. & Stambaugh, T. (2006). A five state analysis of gifted education policies. Roeper Review, 29 (1), 11-23.

Chae,K. P.,Kim, J. H., & Noh, K. S. (2003). Diagnosis of ADHD among gifted children in relation to KEDI- WISC and T.O.V.A performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47

Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B. & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the Gifted and Talented (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Expanding the Umbrella: An Interview with Joseph Renzulli. (2003). Roeper Review, 26(2), 65-67

Hartnett, D., Nelson, J. M., & Rinn, A. N. (2003). Gifted or ADHD? The Possibilities of Misdiagnosis. Roeper Review, 26(2), 73-76.

Klein, A. G. (2000). Fitting the School to the Child: The Mission of Leta Stetter Hollingworth, Founder of Gifted. Roeper Review, 23(2), 97.

Knobel, R., & Shaughnessey, M. (2002). Reflecting on a conversation with Joe Renzulli: About giftedness and gifted education. Gifted Education International, 16, 118-126.

Mintron, L. H., Kazdin, E. A. (Ed), (2000). Encyclopedia of psychology, Vol. 8., (pp. 37-39). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press, 531 pp. doi: 10.1037/10523-016

Reis, M. S.(2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? The Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152.

Rhodes, S. G., (2012). Chesapeake public schools local plan for the education of the gifted. Retrieved from http://www.cpschools.com/proposed_localplan_gifted.php

Williams, J. (2005). Henrico county public schools local plan for the education of the gifted. Retrieved from https://blackboard.wm.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp

https://blackboard.wm.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp

http://www.cpschools.com/proposed_localplan_gifted.php

daniellecoughlinwm.wmwikis.netdaniellecoughlinwm.wmwikis.net/file/view/coughlin+final… · web...

Documents