Advertisement

Teaching Gifted and Talented Children

  • Martina Endepohls-Ulpe
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 21)

Do gifted and talented children have special learning needs demanding differentiated scholastic curricula and instructional strategies? Placing this entry in a section about teaching specific student populations is an implicit positive answer to this question.

Not every instructional method is equally suitable for all students. For example there is evidence that a more structured instructional format may be more effective for younger or less intelligent students while an open instructional format seems to be more advantageous for older or more intelligent students (Heller, 2005, p. 193). Students with a quick learning pace, highly effective information processing capacities and memory skills often appearing in conjunction with high learning motivation and a vast thirst for knowledge will suffer from boredom and under-stimulation when they are instructed in undifferentiated, heterogeneous learning groups. Lack of challenging experiences and lack of sense of achievement will in the long run decrease or delete their motivation and affect their intellectual development. Even behavioural problems may occur.

Keywords

Teacher Nomination Gifted Student Gifted Child Gifted Education Gifted Programme 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Campbell, J. R., Wagner, H., & Walberg, H. J. (2000). Academic competitions and programs designed to challenge the exceptionally talented. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M ö nks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 523–535). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Being gifted in school. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  3. Endepohls-Ulpe, M. (2004). Wie stellen Grundschullehrerkräfte sich hochbegabte Schüler/innen vor? — der Einfluss pers ö nlicher Erfahrung in der Unterrichtung Hochbegabter [Primary school teachers' images of a gifted pupil — Effects of personal experience in teaching gifted children]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 51.Google Scholar
  4. Endepohls-Ulpe, M., & Ruf, H. (2005). Primary school teachers' criteria for the identification of gifted pupils. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ericsson. K. A., Roring, R. W., & Nandagopal, K. (2007). Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: An account based on the expert-performance framework. High Ability Studies, 18,(1), 3–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feldhusen, J. F. (1985). A conception of the field of giftedness. In J. F. Feldhusen (Ed.), Toward excellence in gifted education (pp. 15–30). Denver, CO: Love.Google Scholar
  7. Feldhusen, J. F., & Koloff, M. B. (1979). A three-stage model for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 1, 53–58.Google Scholar
  8. Gagné, F. (1999). My convictions about the nature of abilities, gifts and talents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(2), 109–136.Google Scholar
  9. Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (2000). Instructional psychology and the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M ö nks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 383–396). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. Heller, K. A. (2004). Identification of gifted and talented students. Psychology Science, 46(3), 302–323.Google Scholar
  11. Heller, K. A. (2005). Education and counselling of the gifted and talented in Germany. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 27(2), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heller, K. A., & Hany, E. A. (1996). Psychologische Modelle der Begabtenf ö rderung. [Psychological models of fostering the gifted]. In F. E. Weinert (Hrsg.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologe, Psychologie des Lernens und der Instruktion, Pädagogische Psychologie (Bd. 2, pp. 477–503). G ö ttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  13. Hertzog, N. B. (1998). Open ended activities: Differentiation through learner responses. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(4), 212–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaplan, S. (2003). Is there a gifted-child-pedagogy? Roeper Review, 24(4), 165.Google Scholar
  15. Kennedy, D. M. (1995). Plain talk about creating a gifted-friendly classroom. Roeper Review, 17(4), 232–234.Google Scholar
  16. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1992). Meta-analyic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lautrey, J. (2004). Les modes de scolarisation des enfants à haut potentiel et leurs effets [Modes of schooling of gifted children and their effects]. Psychologie Française, 49, 337–352.Google Scholar
  18. Mönks, F. J. (1987). Beratung und F ö rderung besonders begabter Schüler [Counseling and fostering gifted students]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 34, 214–222.Google Scholar
  19. Montgomery, D. (1994). The promotion of high ability and talent through education and instruction. In K. A. Heller & E. A. Hany (Hrsg.), Competence and responsibility:Vol. 2 (pp. 319–335). Proceedings of the Third European Conference of the European Council for High Ability (October 11–14, 1992), Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
  20. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2003). Gifted education programs and procedures. In W. M. Reynolds & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 7, Educational Psychology (pp. 487–510). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  21. Renzulli, J. S. (1990). Three ring conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. M. (1994). Research related to the schoolwide enrichment triad model. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2000). The schoolwide enrichment model. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M ö nks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 367–382). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented. Storrs: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  25. Rost, D. H. (Ed.). (2000). Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  26. Rost, D. H., & Hanses, P. (1997). Wer nichts leistet, ist nicht begabt? Zur Identifikation hochbegabter Underachiever durch Lehrkräfte [Not achieving — Not gifted? About the identification of gifted children by teacher-ratings]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 29(2), 167–177.Google Scholar
  27. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. (2003). Teaching for successful intelligence. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 207–228.Google Scholar
  28. Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2003). ENTER — Ein Modell zur Identifikation von Hochbegabten [ENTER — A model for the identification of the gifted]. Journal für Begabtenf ö rderung, 3, 8–21.Google Scholar
  29. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children. Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Mac-millan.Google Scholar
  30. Tomlinson, C. A. (1996). Does gifted education have an instructional identity? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(2), 155–174.Google Scholar
  31. Willard-Holt, C. (1994). Strategies for individualizing instruction in regular classrooms. Roeper Review, 17(1), 43–45.Google Scholar
  32. Young, Gifted and Talented, the National Program for Gifted and Talented Education. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from http://ygt.dcsf.gov.uk/
  33. Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2004). Identification based on ENTER within the conceptual frame of the Actiotope Model of Giftedness. Psychology Science, 46(3), 324–342.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martina Endepohls-Ulpe
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Psychologie, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Campus KoblenzUniversitätsstraβe 1KoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations