research paper on gifted and talented students

• 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

Diversifying Learner Experience pp 99–117 Cite as

Diversifying the Experiences of Gifted and Talented Learners: A Review of Recent Trends and Practices

• Caroline Koh 2  
• First Online: 05 January 2021

709 Accesses

A review of the recent literature on gifted and high-ability learners shows a focus on three main areas: motivation, curriculum and clustering, and the application of technology. This chapter aims to provide an overview of the research in these three domains and the applications of these findings in actual learning contexts. Some authors investigated the influence of the curriculum on the motivation of gifted students, providing evidence that the extent to which gifted students perceive the curriculum as motivating depends on the alignment of their goals and values with those in their learning. Thus, researchers investigated the effectiveness of cluster grouping on the performance of gifted students and found that those in the cluster grouped classes showed a significantly higher performance than their peers in traditional heterogeneous classrooms. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of studies on the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to diversify and enrich the experiences of gifted/high-ability learners. Some described how technology can be leveraged to expand academic options for gifted students through distance learning. For instance, high-ability students were able to supplement and enrich their learning through more advanced work in virtual learning environments. This enabled them to interact with peers and instructors from all over the world. Yet others explored the experiences and benefits in the use of various forms of ICT-based technologies with regards to the social and emotional development of gifted students. The review presented in this chapter shows that there is a salient interplay between curriculum, technology and motivation. Crystallizing the outcomes of the studies in these three areas could lead to the delivery of a diverse and enriched program for gifted learners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Adkins, K. K., & Parker, W. (1996). Perfectionism and suicidal preoccupation. Journal of Personality, 64 (2), 529–543. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Article   Google Scholar  

Blair, R. (2011). Online learning for gifted students from the parents’ perspectives. Gifted Child Today, 34 (3), 28–30.

Böhmová, H., & Roštejnská, M. (2009). Chemistry for gifted and talented: On-line course on talnet.  Problems of Education in the 21st Century ,  11 , 14–20.

Google Scholar  

Brulles, D., Saunders, R., & Cohn, S. J. (2010). Improving performance for gifted students in a cluster grouping model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34 (2), 327–350.

Burkhardt, G., Monsour, M., Valdez, G., Gunn, C., Dawson, M., Lemke, C., ... Martin, C. (2003). 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age. Retrieved January, 29, 2008.

Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionist script for self-defeat.  Psychology Today , 34–52.

Chan, D. W. (2010). Perfectionism among Chinese gifted and nongifted students in Hong Kong: The use of the revised almost perfect scale. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 68–98.

Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2012). Motivation and gifted students: Implications of theory and research. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 622–630.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (Vol. 41). New York: HarperPerennial.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K. R., & Whalen, S. (1993).  Talented teenagers: A longitudinal study of their development . Cambridge University Press.

Dove, M. K., & Zitkovich, J. A. (2003). Technology driven group investigations for gifted elementary students. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2003 (1), 223–241.

Duda, J. (2011). Mathematical Creative Activity and the Graphic Calculator.  International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education ,  18 (1).

Emerick, L. J. (1992). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students’ perceptions of factors that reverse the pattern. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (3), 140–146.

Erickson, H. L. (1998). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond the facts . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising practices and pro- grams. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gallagher, J. J., Harradine, C. C., & Coleman, M. R. (1997). Challenge or boredom? Gifted students’ views on their schooling. Roeper Review, 19, 132–136.

Gentry, M. L. (1999). Promoting student achievement and exemplary classroom practices through cluster grouping: A research-based alternative to heterogeneous elementary classrooms.

Gentry, M., & MacDougall, J. (2009). Total school cluster grouping: Model, research, and practice. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, S. K. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little (Eds.), Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted & talented (2nd ed., pp. 211–234). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Gentry, M., & Owen, S. (1999). An investigation of the effects of total school flexible cluster grouping on identification, achievement, and classroom practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 224–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629904300402

Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (1996). A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic motivation in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through early adolescence.  Gifted Child Quarterly ,  40 (4), 179–183.

Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism.  Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior .

Hewitt, P. L., & Dyck, D. G. (1986). Perfectionism, stress, and vulnerability to depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10 (1), 137–142.

Housand, B. C., & Housand, A. M. (2012). The role of technology in gifted students’ motivation. Psychology in the Schools, 49 (7), 706–715.

Kaplan, S. (2009). Myth 9: There is a single curriculum for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53 (4), 257.

Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives . Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L.C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (2), 73–77.

Kwan, P. C. K. (1992). On a pedestal: Effects of intellectual-giftedness and some implications. Educational Psychology, 12, 37–62.

Kwek, K. (2007). 5 19) High anxiety: An elite affection? The Straits Times (p. S10). Singapore: Singapore Press.

Little, C. A. (2012). Curriculum as motivation for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49 (7), 695–705.

Livingstone, D., & Kemp, J. (2008). Integrating web-based and 3D learning environments: Second life meets moodle. UPGRADE (European Journal for the Informatics Professional), 9 (3), 8–14.

Matthews, M. S., Ritchotte, J. A., & McBee, M. T. (2013). Effects of schoolwide cluster grouping and within-class ability grouping on elementary school students’ academic achievement growth. High Ability Studies, 24 (2), 81–97.

Moore III, J. L., Ford, D. Y., & Milner, H. R. (2005). Recruitment is not enough: Retaining African American students in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49 (1), 51–67.

Ng, W., & Nicholas, H. (2010). A progressive pedagogy for online learning with high-ability secondary school students: A case study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54 (3), 239–251.

Otto, M., & Tavella, M. (2010). Motivation and engagement in computer-based learning tasks: Investigating key contributing factors. World Journal on Educational Technology, 2 (1), 1–15.

Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on Perfection. American Psychologist, 39 (4), 386.

Parker, W. D. (1997). An empirical typology of perfectionism in academically talented children. American Educational Research Journal, 34 (3), 545–562.

Parker, W. D., & Mills, C. J. (1996). The incidence of perfectionism in gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40 (4), 194–199.

Passow, A. H. (1962). Differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented . Ventura, CA: Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented.

Periathiruvadi, S., & Rinn, A. N. (2012). Technology in gifted education: A review of best practices and empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45 (2), 153–169.

Phillips, N., & Lindsay, G. (2006). Motivation in gifted students. High Ability Studies, 17 (1), 57–73.

Rasmussen, A. (2019). Policy intersections in education for the gifted and talented in China and Denmark. In  Nordic-Chinese intersections within education  (pp. 173–193). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Reis, S. M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? (p. 93106). Research Monograph: The Curriculum Compacting Study.

Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992).  Curriculum compacting: A guide for teachers . National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44 (3), 152–170.

Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement . Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S., & Smith, L. H. (1978). The compactor . Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning.

Reynolds, R., & Caperton, I. H. (2011). Contrasts in student engagement, meaning-making, dislikes, and challenges in a discovery-based program of game design learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 267–289.

Roedell, W. C. (1984). Vulnerabilities of highly gifted children. Roeper Review, 6 (3), 127–130.

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21 (2), 95.

Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner: Research-based decision making series.

Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382–396.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68.

Schuler, P. A. (2000). Perfectionism and gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11 (4), 183–196.

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J., L. (2008). Motivation in education (3rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Siegle, D. (2004). The merging of literacy and technology in the 21st century: A bonus for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 27 (2), 32–35.

Siegle, D. (2017). Technology: Encouraging creativity and problem solving through coding. Gifted Child Today, 40 (2), 117–123.

Silverman, L. K. (1990). The crucible of perfectionism. In Mental health in a changing world (pp. 39–49).

Sisk, D. (2009). Myth 13: The regular classroom teacher can “go it alone.” Gifted Child Quarterly, 53 (4), 269–271.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57 (3), 293–336.

Sorensen, H., & Hallinan, S. (1986). Effects of ability grouping on growth in academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 23 (4), 519–542.

Stephens, K. R., & Karnes, F. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66 (2), 219–238.

Straub, J. H. (1987). An eclectic counseling approach to the treatment of panics. Journal of Integrative & Eclectic Psychotherapy, 6 (4), 434–449.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: A psychosocial approach.  Conceptions of Giftedness , 21–52.

Tieso, C. L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore. Roeper Review, 26 (1), 29–36.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2003).  Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching . Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

U.S. Congress, Public Law 91–230, April, 1970.

U.S. Department of Education. (1994). National excellence: A case for developing America’s youth . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vallerand, R. J., Gagné, F., Senécal, C., & Pelletier, L. G. (1994). A comparison of the school intrinsic motivation and perceived competence of gifted and regular students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (4), 172–175.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Gifted programs and services: What are the nonnegotiables? Theory into Practice, 44 (2), 90–97.

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Wallace, P. (2005). Distance education for gifted students: Leveraging technology to expand academic options. High Ability Studies, 16 (1), 77–86.

Wang, C. W., & Neihart, M. (2015). How do supports from parents, teachers, and peers influence academic achievement of twice-exceptional students.  Gifted Child Today, 38 (3), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217515583742 .

Winebrenner, S., & Brulles, D. (2008).  The cluster grouping handbook: A schoolwide model: How to challenge gifted students and improve achievement for all . Free Spirit Publishing.

Yeo, L. S., & Pfeiffer, S. I. (2018). Counseling gifted children in Singapore: Implications for evidence-based treatment with a multicultural population. Gifted Education International, 34 (1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429416642284

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

Caroline Koh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline Koh .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Koh, C. (2020). Diversifying the Experiences of Gifted and Talented Learners: A Review of Recent Trends and Practices. In: Koh, C. (eds) Diversifying Learner Experience. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9861-6_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9861-6_6

Published : 05 January 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-15-9860-9

Online ISBN : 978-981-15-9861-6

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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

Improving Gifted Talent Development Can Help Solve Multiple Consequential Real-World Problems

Jonathan wai.

1 Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA

2 Department of Psychology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA

Benjamin J. Lovett

3 School Psychology Program, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA; ude.aibmuloc.ct@9972LB

Associated Data

Not applicable.

Fully developing the talents of all students is a fundamental goal for personal well-being and development and ultimately for global societal innovation and flourishing. However, in this paper we focus on what we believe is an often neglected and underdeveloped population, that of the gifted. We draw from the cognitive aptitude and gifted education research literatures to make the case that solutions to consequential real-world problems can be greatly enhanced by more fully developing the talents of the intellectually gifted population, which we operationalize in this paper as roughly the top 5% of cognitive talent. Should well-supported high achievers choose to solve them, these problems span health, science, economic growth, and areas unforeseen. We draw from longitudinal research on intellectually precocious students and retrospective research on leaders and innovators in society, showing that mathematical, verbal, and spatial aptitudes are linked to societal innovation. We then discuss two remaining fundamental challenges: the identification of disadvantaged and marginalized groups of students who have traditionally been neglected in selection for gifted programming suited to their current developmental needs, and the building of skills beyond academic ones, specifically in the related areas of open-minded thinking and intellectual humility.

1. Introduction and Roadmap

Solving consequential real-world problems would ultimately best be served by fully developing the multitude of talents of all individuals in society. Thus, we should without question help all students, through education and other means, to develop to their full potential. In this paper, we focus on what we believe to be an often neglected and underdeveloped population that very likely could contribute greatly to solving real-world problems to a much larger degree than they currently do ( Benbow and Stanley 1996 ; Gardner 1961 ). This is the intellectually gifted population, which we operationalize as roughly the top 5% of achievers globally. Systemic and structural barriers reducing the likelihood that many talented but disadvantaged students from low-income and minority backgrounds can ultimately develop their talents and eventual expertise to the fullest is a crucial ongoing challenge ( Peters 2021 ). When many children come from poverty, they will not only fail to be recognized as gifted, they might not even develop to be gifted (e.g., Hair et al. 2015 ). This is true for countries around the world where lack of opportunities and numerous headwinds ( Stevens 2020 ; Wai and Worrell 2020 ) face talented but disadvantaged students (in particular compared to their advantaged counterparts). These inequalities in opportunities and challenges may have been even further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and related learning losses globally (e.g., Hanushek and Woessmann 2020 ), adding up to a cumulative disadvantage over time. Of course, whether talented students choose to solve consequential real-world problems or do whatever else they want with their lives is entirely up to them. Our hope is that at least for some, choices to fulfill one’s potential might also be consonant with an interest in contributing to the broader improvement of society, and it is in that hope that we write this article.

This special issue call for papers asked contributors to take one consequential real-world problem and discuss what we know about cognitive abilities that could help us to solve the problem. We reframe this question slightly to consider two areas of research informed by cognitive abilities that can help us solve multiple consequential real-world problems. First, we review the literature making the case that fully developed gifted students in fact already do very likely solve multiple consequential real-world problems but do so broadly very likely based on their personal interests, life circumstances, and educational and developmental trajectories in different areas of achievement and expertise. We further make the case that more fully developing the talents of gifted students or the top 5% of achievers will likely enhance the likelihood of solving real-world problems in the future. Another core problem is identifying and developing the talents of talented but disadvantaged students, especially underrepresented minorities, to ensure personal development and flourishing but also to broaden the talent pool to solve problems from a broader array of perspectives and personal talents. Broadly, we begin our article describing how developed cognitive aptitudes are important to solving real-world problems, introduce our theoretical and empirical perspective that frames the remainder of the article, and discuss issues in regard to the support and development of gifted students, and really all students, on multiple dimensions.

2. Talent Development and Innovation

In 1957 a group of scientists from the California Institute of Technology, after multiple discussions with industrialists and other leaders, published their forecasts for the most important problems facing humanity for the next 100 years. The authors ( Brown et al. 1957, p. 152 ) concluded that “The problems which we face in the years ahead are indeed both numerous and grave, but, theoretically at least, it seems likely that they can be solved by the proper application of our intelligence.” There are many strategies for applying cognitive aptitudes to real-world problems. In this article, we emphasize the importance of investing in all students, with a focus on strategies involving investment in gifted students, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Cole ( 2016, p. 23 ) described the “law of the 5 percent” as the idea that in nearly every field, the top 5% of that field will be responsible for the vast majority of innovation. We introduce the idea of investing in developing more students to be among what is currently the top 5 percent of achievers, then fully developing that broader group of achievers, who we argue have been, are, and will be largely responsible for innovation across multiple fields of intellectual and creative endeavor in the future.

Talented individuals innovate in a variety of ways that can benefit society, and are very likely to rise to positions of influence to be able to implement those innovations ( Lubinski and Benbow 2020 ; Wai and Worrell 2016 ; Wai 2013 ). Innovations come from individuals throughout the cognitive aptitude range, and many high achieving students do not choose to solve consequential real-world problems. This suggests we should invest in developing the talents of all students, including gifted students, because as cognitive aptitudes rise, so does the likelihood of innovation.

Certainly, the idea of ensuring talent development is not new ( Gardner 1961 ), and is truly a global consequential real-world problem. As researchers who work and live in the US, we are biased towards our local perspective, but also see how in many less developed nations the lack of talent development may even be more severe given greater structural and other barriers such as poverty and lack of opportunity. The US already has a number of programs for the purpose of talent development, both at the level of individual schools and at a national level. However, the availability of talent development programs varies widely. Many schools lack such programming, and the national programs have limited capacity and are often quite expensive. In a broad sense, talent development is the essence of all education (e.g., Subotnik et al. 2011 ). However, there remain many students with high potential who simply were not born into circumstances with sufficient opportunities, and whose talent is often overlooked and underdeveloped ( Hair et al. 2015 ; Peters 2021 ).

In the US, this is at least in part because there remains very little federal support for gifted education ( Benbow and Stanley 1996 ), or even any federal requirements to provide such services. Instead, the decision is up to states and school districts, and the availability of services varies widely across these settings. In many school districts, no formal gifted supports are available at all. Even when some supports are present, they rarely include all the students who should be eligible. Often, those left behind are talented students from low-income and historically marginalized backgrounds ( Wai and Worrell 2016 ) and students with overlooked spatial talents ( Lakin and Wai 2020 ; Wai and Lakin 2020 ). Some scholars argue that COVID-19 learning losses could add up to trillions ( Azevedo et al. 2020 ). Other scholars argue that the long-run economic impact of this loss is the same as one-third of a year of schooling which translates to a gross domestic product (GDP) loss of 1.5% on average for the remainder of the century ( Hanushek and Woessmann 2020 ; Schleicher 2020 ). In this context, it is crucial to ensure that talented but disadvantaged students do not get left behind.

To be clear, we should invest in all students throughout the full spectrum to develop and help them use that cognitive potential to the very best of their capacity. However, major societal problems are, again, more likely to be solved by those with the greatest developed talents, and when such problems are solved, everyone can benefit. Gifted education should therefore not be viewed as an individual reward to students for having high ability, but perhaps in part as a societal investment with a high likelihood of good returns. Even merely more optimal matching of high-aptitude individuals to jobs and settings that require the solution of complex problems is associated with more economic growth across countries ( Strenze 2013 ). If we go beyond this matching process to actually fully develop the gifts of those with the highest developed potential, this might even lead to even greater gains. Of course, whether individual students choose to pursue certain life courses is ultimately up to them, whether that means taking advantage of opportunities that are available, finding a domain that suits their interests and aptitudes, or sustaining the years of motivation and hard work often required to attain expertise in a given domain.

3. Cognitive Aptitudes and Giftedness: Definitions

Though there are numerous verbal operationalizations of what being gifted means (e.g., for a review see Subotnik et al. 2011 ), we focus on aspects of giftedness that are measurable through cognitive tests as one indicator of giftedness. More specifically, we focus on a version of the hierarchical model of abilities ( Carroll 1993 ) known as the Radex model ( Lubinski 2004 ), which includes general reasoning at the apex and the specific aptitudes of mathematical, verbal, and spatial. This well-established structure, at least in our view, should at least be considered part of a measurable and consistent definition of intellectual giftedness ( Coleman and Cureton 1954 ; Detterman 1993 ; Thompson and Oehlert 2010 ; Kelley 1927 ). We also view all abilities as developed and that cognitive aptitudes are current developed capacities that an individual brings to learning or problem-solving environments at a given time ( Lohman 2005 ; Snow 1996 ). All aptitudes or abilities are thus developed and malleable ( Subotnik et al. 2011 ; Uttal et al. 2013 ), and they are both important to learning and problem-solving environments such as schooling, but also an important product of schooling ( Ceci 1991 ; Lohman 1993 ; Ritchie and Tucker-Drob 2018 ).

4. High Developed Aptitudes Can Often Lead to Greater Innovation

Even just a small number of academically gifted and talented scientists can improve our lives in the most remarkable of ways. Pinker ( 2018 ) summarized findings from scienceheroes.com, which lists roughly 100 individuals with remarkable achievements who have made life-saving discoveries. Based on this data, Pinker ( 2018 ) argues that over 5.5 billion lives have been saved by a small cohort of 100 or so individual scientists. This includes the discovery of the chlorination of water, smallpox eradication strategy, measles vaccine, penicillin, oral rehydration therapy, among numerous other examples. The scientists who developed the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Katalin Kariko, Ugur Sahin, Albert Bourla, and Ozlem Tureci are contemporary examples ( Gelles 2020 ).

Rindermann and Thompson ( 2011 ) illustrated that the cognitive 5% of a nation’s population disproportionately influenced innovation and GDP of that nation. Longitudinal studies focused on the gifted population also illustrate that fully developed gifted students can earn doctorates, publications, patents, and even university tenure at the rate of two to eight times that of the general population ( Lubinski and Benbow 2006 , 2020 ; Park et al. 2007 ). Findings within the top 1% of aptitudes are replicated in both nonrandom ( Lubinski and Benbow 2020 ) and random gifted samples ( Wai 2014 ). There does not appear to be a threshold beyond which more aptitude no longer matters for a wide range of life outcomes both within gifted samples ( Lubinski and Benbow 2020 ) and also across multiple population-representative samples in the US and UK ( Brown et al. 2021 ). Even when drawing from a large sample of US leaders across a variety of domains such as business, the media, politics, law, and those with enormous wealth, when retrospectively profiling where these leaders attended higher education, roughly half attended educational institutions that largely selected for the top 1% of aptitude on standardized admissions tests ( Wai 2013 ).

5. Improving Gifted Talent Development has the Potential to Enhance a Wide Range of Innovations and Social Returns

Innovation can be considered to be largely about creating something truly new and useful. Flexner and Dijkgraaf ( 2017 ), as well as Braben ( 1994 , 2020 ), argued that a key for intellectual advancement is to encourage brilliant and unique minds to pursue whatever interests them—or even what goes against the current popular research topics—and to choose questions that do not necessarily have immediate application. Differential psychology ( Revelle et al. 2011 ) shows us that people have varying interests ( Su 2020 ), and this is true within the gifted population as well (e.g., Lubinski and Benbow 2006 , 2020 ; Wai 2013 ), suggesting that different interests may be linked to wide ranging areas of innovation. Studies on cohorts of intellectually talented youths in the top 1%, top 0.5% and top 0.01% of aptitude show that as the average talent of the gifted cohort rises, so does the accomplishments of that group ( Lubinski and Benbow 2006 , 2020 ). Crucially, the range of innovation of these talented youths is spread across a wide array of domains, from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields to the humanities, heads of business, partners in law firms, and publication of novels. Coupled with the findings that the top 1% of academically gifted individuals who attended highly selective institutions make up roughly half of various US leaders of society ( Wai 2013 ), this suggests that high ability individuals innovate across a wide range of areas, perhaps based in part on aptitudes (both level and pattern), interests, personality, motivation, and of course their access to appropriate educational or other stimulating opportunities ( Wai et al. 2010 ).

Jones ( 2016 ) argues that investment in developing the talents of all individuals in a nation could have positive spillovers in the form of increased patience, cooperation, and being more knowledgeable and informed. Therefore, investments in nutrition and education may have the potential to improve a wide range of outcomes. Jones and Summers ( 2020, p. 34 ) assessed the social returns to innovation, concluding that “innovation investments can credibly raise economic growth rates and extend lives, paying for their costs many times over. And because the social returns exceed the private returns, public policy has a central role, and opportunity, in unleashing these gains.” Linking these economic estimates of spillover effects of broad human capital investment to Heckman ( 2000 ) payoff curves and broader literature (e.g., Lubinski and Benbow 2006 , 2020 ) showing that fully developed talented individuals may contribute a great deal to innovation in society suggests that investing in the gifted—in particular the less advantaged—has the potential to enhance real-world problem solving and improve the rate of social returns. Admittedly: to ensure that everyone benefits requires social policies that go far beyond gifted education and talent development to address a wide range of inequalities (e.g., Blanchard and Rodrik 2021 ). Moreover, even when everyone benefits from innovation and advancement, some groups may benefit more than others, widening gaps that already exist ( Ceci and Papierno 2005 ). We do not want to minimize these complex issues; our point is simply that solving major real-world problems has the potential to benefit everyone. Of course, giftedness can be put to bad uses as well as good ones; in Section 8 below, we discuss how to promote the latter applications of giftedness.

6. Companies Seek Talented People, Who Can Come from Anywhere

Investing in gifted children in the early years, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, can simultaneously help improve innovation and equity. However, in the US at least, gifted education appears to be a low priority in kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) education. This is in contrast to the broader talent selection and development priority of companies worldwide—including in the US—who are desperately seeking talented individuals from around the world to improve innovation and revenue generation ( Roose 2014 ). For example, global talent searches in the form of high-end programming competitions—Google’s CodeJam, Facebook’s Kaggle Recruit, or Microsoft’s Code4Bill talent search in India—are useful, cost-effective screening tools for top tech companies to get the variety of talented people they need. Google’s CodeJam winner in 2012 described the content of the competition as “more like mathematical work or solving logic puzzles,” so something very much akin to a high-level cognitive aptitude test ( Chabris and Wai 2014 ). Similarly, the Thiel fellows program gives $100,000 and access to a network of contacts to those who want to build things and may not need to go through the traditional sequence of schooling such as attending college ( https://thielfellowship.org/ , accessed on 10 June 2021). Recently, Eric and Wendy Schmidt launched the Rise program, which seeks to uncover talented youths from around the world and provide them with resources for life ( Mehta 2020 ).

Companies may have largely focused on selecting talent later in the pipeline globally instead of investing in talent early in US K-12 education because much of the talent they are interested in (and meets company needs) comes from countries outside the US. For example, 37% of the US Nobel Prize winners from 2000–2020 in physics, chemistry, and medicine were immigrants ( National Foundation for American Policy 2020 ). In 2016–2017, foreign students accounted for 54% of master’s degrees and 44% of doctorate degrees given in STEM fields in the US ( Congressional Research Service 2019 ), and many top companies are founded by immigrants ( Wadhwa et al. 2007 ). Not only do these highly gifted immigrants who are educated in the K-12 systems of other countries contribute disproportionately to US innovation; they also often end up residing in the US and having children, and many of those children are highly talented individuals who may also contribute to further innovation, what Anderson ( 2004, p. 15 ) has called the multiplier effect. Historically the US has been a magnet for highly skilled individuals in search of opportunity and who have sought out US higher education, which is still among the best in the world. However, in the broader interest of solving worldwide problems there is no reason why the US will be where individuals seek to further their personal opportunities. For solving global real-world problems, the key is that top talent is provided support to innovate wherever they are or wish to live and work.

7. Lack of Development of the Gifted, Particularly among the Disadvantaged

Underdevelopment of talent is a larger problem in countries outside the US—specifically low-income, low-opportunity countries ( Rosling et al. 2018 ). However, both the students themselves and the country or world as a whole still can benefit from investing in the relatively disadvantaged talented students within the country. This should be done not just for innovation purposes, but for the purposes of equity and seeking to ensure social mobility and that positions of leadership in US society can be accessed by talented students from low-income backgrounds and other marginalized communities, especially underrepresented minorities. Here we discuss the US as we are most familiar with it, but structural and systemic barriers to talent development globally are equally important to consider.

The federal K-12 investment in gifted and talented education in the US has remained at roughly 0.0002% for decades, which amounts to 1 dollar for every $500,000 spent ( Wai and Worrell 2016 ). This lack of investment in gifted education primarily impacts public school gifted programming, which is what most talented students from poor backgrounds rely on ( Peters 2021 ). At the same time, talented students with parents with greater resources have not been set back by this lack of funding since their parents can find ways to provide a sufficient educational dosage for them outside traditional public schools ( Berner 2017 ). Early universal screening for gifted and talented students coupled with adequate matching of educational programming would do a great deal to help talented-but-disadvantaged students develop to their fullest and improve the likelihood they can ascend the highly competitive elite college admissions hurdles and find their way into positions of leadership in US society. At present, however, many talented-but-disadvantaged students still fall through the cracks.

The issue of how and why gifted students from some groups are less likely to be identified is complex and controversial (see e.g., Hair et al. 2015 ; Liu and Waller 2018 , for discussion). Societal and structural inequalities including poverty lead to gaps in identification through many mechanisms and hurdles throughout the path to being identified as gifted, but the mechanism relating most to cognitive aptitudes (and thus most relevant to this article) is clear: students from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to undergo cognitive testing for potential gifted identification in the first place ( Card and Giuliano 2016 ; Grissom and Redding 2016 ; McBee et al. 2016 ). For instance, as Worrell and Dixson ( 2018 ) noted, academic achievement gaps between ethnic groups in US schools are large, and given that early educational performance (e.g., grades) is often used as evidence to nominate a child for gifted evaluation, many Black and Hispanic students are less likely to ever even be given aptitude tests. At times, families play a strong role in nomination for gifted evaluation as well, and students from low-socioeconomic status (SES) homes are less likely to have parents who push for such evaluation ( Calarco 2018 ; Grissom and Redding 2016 ; McBee et al. 2016 ). This latter mechanism may also explain why the test used for admission into New York City’s selective high schools—schools known to have few Black and Hispanic students (e.g., Shapiro 2019 )—is only taken by a relatively small proportion of students from those ethnic groups to begin with.

Once a student is evaluated for giftedness, the identification criteria vary widely. Traditional cognitive tests are likely to leave out an important population of gifted students. Almost all standardized tests that are used for various forms of educational selection include primarily math and verbal reasoning measures ( Lakin and Wai 2020 ; Wai and Lakin 2020 ), leaving out spatial reasoning and other aptitudes. In the hierarchical model ( Carroll 1993 ), below the general factor the three main specific aptitudes are math, verbal, and spatial in the Radex configuration ( Lubinski 2004 ). Through this lens, Lakin and Wai ( 2020 ) estimated, based on three independent population representative samples, that over 2 million spatially talented students, who are adept at being able to visualize and rotate figures in their mind’s eye and work with their hands, are currently missed in US K-12 education. Therefore, curricula are not set up to suit their strengths, and these students tend to underachieve and are more likely to develop behavioral issues ( Lakin and Wai 2020 ). This is despite the fact that spatial reasoning has been linked to a wide range of innovation outcomes from STEM to the visual arts ( Wai et al. 2009 ), and has been shown to be malleable (e.g., Sorby et al. 2018 ; Uttal et al. 2013 ).

8. Development of the Gifted on Multiple Dimensions

Although we emphasize aptitude testing in selection processes for gifted programming, the programming itself should go far beyond traditional academic skills. Regarding character education, we also suggest the cultivation of specific skills and tendencies that have been a focus of recent empirical research. Two especially neglected areas for talent development are intellectual humility ( Leary et al. 2017 ) and actively open-minded thinking ( Baron 2019 ). Those two traits both involve awareness of common biases and limitations that accompany thinking, and a consequent tendency to seek and seriously consider alternative points of view. Such a tendency may help gifted students to understand that although they are highly intelligent, they should expect to make mistakes at times, and should adjust their intellectual confidence accordingly. Intellectual humility also helps gifted students to understand the importance of domain-specific knowledge when making judgments and decisions. This helps to guard against what the philosopher Nathan Ballantyne ( 2019 ) has called epistemic trespassing , where people with expertise in one domain make overly confident judgments far outside that domain. As academically high-achieving students become accomplished adults, they will typically develop an area of professional focus, and should carefully consider the expertise of those in other areas. Finally, intellectual humility and actively open-minded thinking both mitigate the effects of political or other ideological polarization. Rather than dismissing different perspectives, actively open-minded thinkers deliberately search for reasons why they might be wrong, and are less likely to fall prey to errors caused by biases in reasoning ( Toplak et al. 2017 ). Interestingly, despite their openness, they are also less likely to believe fake news stories ( Bronstein et al. 2019 ). They seem to have the best of both worlds, then—curious and tolerant of multiple viewpoints, but able to evaluate information critically when necessary.

Intellectual humility and actively open-minded thinking are especially important to cultivate in gifted children, given research showing a lack of relationship between cognitive aptitude and myside bias in thinking (e.g., Stanovich et al. 2013 ; Stanovich and West 2008 ). That is, brighter students are actually not substantially better than their peers at being fair and objective when evaluating evidence and argumentation, or distancing their judgment process from their prior opinions. Instead, high cognitive aptitude may only lead gifted students to be better able to rationalize and justify their beliefs, which would feed polarization rather than attenuate it. There are many studies giving guidance on how to cultivate open-minded thinking. These studies often use the umbrella term critical thinking but include core elements of open-minded thinking. For example, Parks ( 2015 ) reviewed the critical thinking literature with a particular focus on applying it to gifted education. There has been less empirical research on the teaching of intellectual humility, but Roberts ( 2015 ) suggested that teachers should model intellectual humility themselves, encourage students to explicitly describe how and what they have learned from others, and use literature to show students rich examples of intellectual humility as well as its opposite.

Because talented individuals do end up as leaders of society ( Wai 2013 ) in various domains of influence and also hold a large amount of resources and power ( Freeland 2012 ; Goodhart 2020 ; Sandel 2020 ), it is important to help them understand that they are fortunate to be talented to begin with. Although they have likely worked quite hard, they started their journey with cognitive and other resources that many of the less fortunate lacked. Individuals who have a head start in life should be taught not to exploit their influence or aptitudes to the disadvantage of others. Relatedly, they may have not developed the skills required to cope with failure—an experience that they may have rarely faced, instead being consistently at the head of the class and accustomed to success. Murray ( 2008, p. 132 ) argued that “No one among the gifted should be allowed to rise to a position of influence without knowing what it feels like to fail. The experience of internalized humiliation is a prerequisite for humility.” The gifted can benefit from humility and wisdom. Perhaps one key to help talented students fail deliberately is entirely consonant with ensuring all students are fully if not more than sufficiently challenged and meeting their upper cognitive limits in schools through rigorous educational opportunities ( Assouline et al. 2015 ; Wai et al. 2010 ). Another might be to help the talented but disadvantaged rise to positions of influence as they will have very likely internalized failure more readily in overcoming adversity. Failure may also be crucial to withstand, perhaps even collectively over time, in order to ultimately make a true scientific or other advance. For example, Harris ( 2021 ) explains that repeated unsuccessful efforts to develop an HIV vaccine was in fact a core catalyst for developing the scientific know-how that has led to the development of a sequence of other vaccines that led to successfully combating COVID-19.

To further address polarization, gifted students—like all students—should be educated to value and respect different ways of thinking. In particular, it is important for the gifted 5 percent of achievers to have compassion for those who are not as gifted and who likely face many more challenges throughout their lives because they do not have this cognitive or other head start. The gifted should recognize that though they have earned some of their station in life, being a good citizen may increase their responsibility to care for the common good, given that they started on second or third base. This may lead to solving consequential real-world problems that can improve the common good.

9. Practical Implications

9.1. identification of gifted students (and really all students) on a developmental continuum.

First, students with high potential must be accurately identified. Research has repeatedly shown that formal assessments capture students that are missed through teacher nomination processes, and formal assessments also lead to more equitable identification rates across ethnic groups (e.g., Card and Giuliano 2016 ; Grissom and Redding 2016 ; McBee et al. 2016 ). Schools should therefore be universally screening students for high aptitude ( Card and Giuliano 2016 ; Dynarski 2018 ), and also comparing students to others with similar opportunities to learn using local norms to further broaden the group of those identified and are ready for more challenging educational opportunities ( Peters et al. 2019 ). Screening all students at an early age, on mathematical, verbal, and spatial reasoning, and then matching those students to the right mix or dosage of appropriate learning opportunities, can do a great deal to help develop their talents to the fullest ( Wai and Lakin 2020 ). Testing at more than one point in time is important as well, to make room for late bloomers and to ensure educational programming is matched to short-term developmental need ( Kaufman 2013 ). More generally, individuality is wide ranging and society should encourage multiple forms of talent and find productive ways to encourage intellectual diversity. This screening and support should apply to all students in schools, not just a somewhat arbitrarily defined set of students. As Sternberg ( 2020 ) noted, real-world problems often have features that are not found in typical intellectual and academic test items, and so we should always be open to considering new aptitude-related constructs and measures that can supplement current testing.

Assessing multiple areas of aptitude (even just the primary three mentioned—mathematical, verbal, and spatial) also helps to address concerns that gifted students who have concomitant disabilities (“twice-exceptional” students) are being neglected. For instance, if only one measure of aptitude is used, and it is heavily verbally loaded, a gifted student with autism spectrum disorder may not be properly identified (see Dawson et al. 2007 ). This does not mean that the standards for giftedness or disability identification should vary from student to student (see Lovett 2013 , for some of the problems with such approaches), only that when selecting assessment measures, different areas of aptitude and disability should be considered.

9.2. The Imperative of Gifted Support

Second, formal gifted education should be available in far more school districts; it should be a very rare school where a student cannot access some type of appropriate talent development. Additionally, programming for supporting gifted students comes in a variety of forms and may not be limited to public schools ( Berner 2017 ). For instance, acceleration involves leading high-aptitude learners through academic material at faster rates than their peers ( Assouline et al. 2015 ); this broad class of interventions has relatively clear benefits for academic skill development without negative socioemotional effects ( Bernstein et al. 2020 ; Steenbergen-Hu and Moon 2011 ). Enrichment strategies instead provide additional information on topics covered in class, exposing academically gifted students to specific content domains of knowledge in greater depth; this intervention is associated with even greater gains in academic skills, as well as improved socioemotional development ( Kim 2016 ). Both strategies address the needs of the academically achieving 5 percent, replacing potentially redundant content with more challenging and stimulating work. Enrichment programs can also involve introducing high-aptitude learners to real-world problems that they may later choose to investigate in greater depth. In addition, both enrichment and acceleration can expose gifted students to quite difficult material, teaching the coping skills and self-awareness that come with the experience of making mistakes and struggling with conceptual complexity, and ultimately learning to fail productively.

9.3. An Environment Supporting Significant Intellectual Accomplishment

Finally, there needs to be a valuing and respect and even celebration for high accomplishments in cognitive and academic domains of expertise. Optimally, this would happen in the larger culture, but at the very least, schools should be settings where high-aptitude students are motivated to achieve appropriately ambitious goals through incentives, including attention, recognition, and praise from educational professionals and their peers. Gagné ( 2018 ) emphasized the importance of personal excellence goals in talent development, but without some extrinsic reinforcers, gifted students are apt to fall into the common path of underachievement ( Siegle 2018 ).

10. Conclusions

Improving the talent development of the top 5 percent of gifted students globally will improve the likelihood of solving multiple (including presently unforeseen) consequential real-world problems in the future that can promote the common good and enhance our standard of living. Fully developing the talent of low-income and disadvantaged students is crucially important for equity reasons such as social mobility and will also improve innovation, injecting more diverse talent that has likely overcome more failures and developed character in positions of leadership. Investing in all individuals can also have numerous, broad beneficial spillover effects such as social returns. Finally, apart from the benefit to society of fully developed gifted students, the realization of one’s personal and intellectual capacities is important to support for all students, and for this reason alone we should be ensuring we help the most brilliant students from every walk of life have the opportunity to become their very best.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.W. and B.J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.W. and B.J.L.; writing—review and editing, J.W. and B.J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

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

• Anderson Stuart. The multiplier effect. International Educator. 2004; 13 :14–21. doi: 10.1891/194589505787382739. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Assouline Susan G., Colangelo Nicholas, VanTassel-Baska Joyce, Lupkowski-Shoplik Ann. A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students. Belin Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa; Iowa City: 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Azevedo Joao P., Hasan Amer, Geven Koen, Goldemberg Diana, Iqbal Syedah A. Learning Losses Due to COVID-19 Could Add up to $10 Trillion. [(accessed on 10 June 2021)]; Brookings Institution. 2020 Available online: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/07/30/learning-losses-due-to-covid-19-could-add-up-to-10-trillion/
• Ballantyne Nathan. Epistemic trespassing. Mind. 2019; 128 :367–95. doi: 10.1093/mind/fzx042. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron Jonathan. Actively open-minded thinking in politics. Cognition. 2019; 188 :8–18. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benbow Camilla P., Stanley Julian C. Inequity in equity: How “equity” can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 1996; 2 :249–92. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.249. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berner Ashley R. Pluralism and American Public Education. Palgrave Macmillan; New York: 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernstein Brian O., Lubinski David, Benbow Camilla P. Academic acceleration in gifted youth and fruitless concerns regarding psychological well-being: A 35-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2020 doi: 10.1037/edu0000500. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blanchard Olivier, Rodrik Dani., editors. Combating Inequality: Rethinking Government’s Role. The MIT Press; Cambridge: 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braben Donald W. Scientific Freedom: The Elixir of Civilization. Stripe Press; San Francisco: 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braben Donald W. To Be a Scientist: The Spirit of Adventure in Science and Technology. Oxford University Press; Oxford: 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronstein Michael V., Pennycook Gordon, Bear Adam, Rand David G., Cannon Tyrone D. Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2019; 8 :108–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown Harrison, Bonner James, Weir John. The Next Hundred Years. The Scientific Book Club; London: 1957. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown Matt I., Wai Jonathan, Chabris Christopher F. Can you ever be too smart for your own good? Comparing linear and nonlinear effects of cognitive ability on life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2021 doi: 10.1177/1745691620964122. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calarco Jessica M. Negotiating Opportunities. Oxford University Press; Oxford: 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Card David, Giuliano Laura. Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016; 113 :13678–83. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1605043113. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carroll John B. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ceci Stephen J. How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A reassessment of the evidence. Developmental Psychology. 1991; 27 :703–22. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.703. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ceci Stephen J., Papierno Paul B. The rhetoric and reality of gap closing: When the “have-nots” gain but the “haves” gain even more. American Psychologist. 2005; 60 :149–60. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.149. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chabris Christopher F., Wai Jonathan. Hire like Google? For Most Companies, that’s a Bad Idea. [(accessed on 10 June 2021)]; Los Angeles Times. 2014 Available online: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chabris-google-intelligence-20140309-story.html
• Cole Jonathan. Toward a More Perfect University. Public Affairs; New York: 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coleman William, Cureton Edward E. Intelligence and achievement: The “jangle fallacy” again. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1954; 14 :347–51. doi: 10.1177/001316445401400214. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Congressional Research Service Foreign STEM Students in the United States. [(accessed on 10 June 2021)]; 2019 Available online: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11347#:~:text=This%20percentage%20is%20even%20higher,United%20States%20in%20SY2016%2D2017
• Dawson Michelle, Soulières Isabelle, Gernsbacher Morton A., Mottron Laurent. The level and nature of autistic intelligence. Psychological Science. 2007; 18 :657–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01954.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Detterman Douglas K. Giftedness and intelligence: One and the same? Ciba Foundation Symposium. 1993; 178 :22–31. doi: 10.1002/9780470514498.ch3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dynarski Susan M. ACT/SAT for all: A Cheap, Effective Way to Narrow Income Gaps in College. [(accessed on 10 June 2021)]; Brookings Institution. 2018 Available online: https://www.brookings.edu/research/act-sat-for-all-a-cheap-effective-way-to-narrow-income-gaps-in-college/
• Flexner Abraham, Dijkgraaf Robbert. The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge. Princeton University Press; Princeton: 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeland Chrystia. Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else. The Penguin Press; New York: 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gagné Francoys. Academic talent development: Theory and best practices. In: Pfeiffer Steven I., editor. APA Handbook of Giftedness and Talent. American Psychological Association; Washington, DC: 2018. pp. 163–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gardner John W. Excellence. Harper; New York: 1961. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gelles David. The Husband-and-Wife Team Behind the Leading Vaccine to Solve Covid-19. [(accessed on 10 June 2021)]; New York Times. 2020 Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/business/biontech-covid-vaccine.html
• Goodhart David. Head, Hand, Heart: Why Intelligence Is Over-Rewarded, Manual Workers Matter, and Caregivers Deserve More Respect. Free Press; New York: 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grissom Jason A., Redding Christopher. Descretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open. 2016; 2 doi: 10.1177/2332858415622175. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hair Nicole L., Hanson Jamie L., Wolfe Barbara L., Pollak Seth D. Association of child poverty, brain development, and academic achievement. JAMA Pediatrics. 2015; 169 :822–29. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1475. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanushek Eric A., Woessmann Ludger. The Economic Impacts of Learning Losses. [(accessed on 10 June 2021)]; OECD Working Paper. 2020 Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/The-economic-impacts-of-coronavirus-covid-19-learning-losses.pdf
• Harris Jeffrey E. The Repeated Setbacks of HIV Vaccine Development Laid the Groundwork for SARS-COV-2 vaccines. [(accessed on 10 June 2021)]; NBER Working Paper 28587. 2021 Available online: http://nber.org/papers/w28587 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Heckman James J. Policies to Foster Human Capital. Research in Economics. 2000; 54 :3–56. doi: 10.1006/reec.1999.0225. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones Garett. Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters so Much More than Your Own. Stanford University Press; Palo Alto: 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones Benjamin F., Summers Lawrence H. A Calculation of the Social Returns to Innovation. NBER; Cambridge: 2020. NBER Working Paper No. 27863. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaufman Scott B. Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined. Basic Books; New York: 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelley Truman L. Interpretation of Educational Measurements. World Book Company; Yonkers: 1927. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim Mihyeon. A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 2016; 60 :102–16. doi: 10.1177/0016986216630607. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakin Joni M., Wai Jonathan. Spatially gifted, academically inconvenienced: Spatially talented students experience less academic engagement and more behavioral issues than other talented students. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2020; 90 :1015–38. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12343. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leary Mark R., Diebels Kate J., Davisson Erin K., Jongman-Sereno Katrina P., Isherwood Jennifer C., Raimi Kaitlin T., Deffler Samantha A., Hoyle Rick H. Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual humility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2017; 43 :793–813. doi: 10.1177/0146167217697695. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu William M., Waller LaNeisha. Identifying and educating underrepresented gifted students. In: Pfeiffer Steven I., editor. APA Handbook of Giftedness and Talent. American Psychological Association; Washington, DC: 2018. pp. 417–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lohman David F. Teaching and testing to develop fluid abilities. Educational Researcher. 1993; 22 :12–23. doi: 10.3102/0013189X022007012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lohman David F. Identifying Academically Talented Minority Students . The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. [(accessed on 10 June 2021)]; 2005 Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505376.pdf
• Lovett Benjamin J. The science and politics of gifted students with learning disabilities: A social inequality perspective. Roeper Review. 2013; 35 :136–43. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2013.766965. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubinski David. Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman’s 1904 “‘General intelligence,’ objectively determined and measured” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2004; 86 :96–111. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.96. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubinski David, Benbow Camilla P. Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2006; 1 :316–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubinski David, Benbow Camilla P. Intellectual precocity: What have learned since Terman? Gifted Child Quarterly. 2020; 65 :3–28. doi: 10.1177/0016986220925447. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McBee Matthew T., Peters Scott J., Miller Erin M. The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly. 2016; 60 :258–78. doi: 10.1177/0016986216656256. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mehta Stephanie. Eric and Wendy Schmidt Launch Global Talent Corps for Teenagers. [(accessed on 10 June 2021)]; Fast Company. 2020 Available online: https://www.fastcompany.com/90575018/eric-and-wendy-schmidt-launch-global-talent-corps-for-teenagers
• Murray Charles. Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality. Crown Forum; New York: 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Foundation for American Policy Immigrants and Nobel Prizes: 1901–2020. [(accessed on 10 June 2021)]; 2020 Available online: https://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Immigrants-and-Nobel-Prizes-1901-to-2020.NFAP-Policy-Brief.October-2020.pdf
• Park Gregory, Lubinski David, Benbow Camilla P. Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological Science. 2007; 18 :948–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02007.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parks Sandra. Teaching analytical and critical thinking skills in gifted education. In: Karnes Frances A., Bean Suzanne M., editors. Methods and Materials for Teaching the Gifted. Prufrock Press; Waco: 2015. pp. 307–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters Scott J. The challenges of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly. 2021 doi: 10.1177/00169862211002535. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters Scott J., Rambo-Hernandez Karen, Makel Matthew C., Matthews Michael S., Plucker Jonathan A. Effects of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open. 2019; 5 :1–18. doi: 10.1177/2332858419848446. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinker Steven A. Enlightenment Now. Viking; New York: 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Revelle William, Wilt Joshua, Condon David M. Individual differences and differential psychology: A brief history and prospect. In: Chamorro-Premuzic Tomas, Stumm Sophie von, Furnham Adrian., editors. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences. Wiley Blackwell; Hoboken: 2011. pp. 3–38. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rindermann Heiner, Thompson James. Cognitive capitalism: The effect of cognitive ability on wealth, as mediated through scientific achievement and economic freedom. Psychological Science. 2011; 22 :754–63. doi: 10.1177/0956797611407207. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie Stuart J., Tucker-Drob Elliot M. How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological Science. 2018; 29 :1358–69. doi: 10.1177/0956797618774253. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts Robert C. Learning intellectual humility. In: Baehr Jason., editor. Intellectual Virtues and Education. Routledge; England: 2015. pp. 184–201. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosling Hans, Ronnlund Anna R., Rosling Ola. Factfulness: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong About the World—and Why Things are Better than you Think. Flatiron books; New York: 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roose Kevin. Marc Andreessen on Why Optimism is Always the Safest Bet. [(accessed on 10 June 2021)]; New York Magazine. 2014 Available online: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/10/marc-andreessen-in-conversation.html
• Sandel Michael J. The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? Farrar, Straus and Giroux; New York: 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schleicher Andreas. The Impact of Covid-19 on Education: Insights from Education at a Glance 2020. [(accessed on 10 June 2021)]; OECD. 2020 Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-education-insights-education-at-a-glance-2020.pdf
• Shapiro Eliza. Only 7 Black Students Got into Stuyvesant, N. Y.’s Most Selective High School, out of 895 Spots. [(accessed on 10 June 2021)]; New York Times. 2019 Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/nyregion/black-students-nyc-high-schools.html
• Snow Richard E. Aptitude development and education. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 1996; 2 :536–60. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.2.3-4.536. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siegle Del. Understanding underachievement. In: Pfeiffer Steven I., editor. Handbook of Giftedness in Children. Springer; New York: 2018. pp. 285–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sorby Sheryl A., Veurink Norma, Streiner Scott. Does spatial skills instruction improve STEM outcomes? The answer is ‘yes’ Journal of Learning and Individual Differences. 2018; 67 :209–22. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.09.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008; 94 :672–95. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F., Toplak Maggie E. Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2013; 22 :259–64. doi: 10.1177/0963721413480174. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steenbergen-Hu Saiying, Moon Sidney M. The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly. 2011; 55 :39–53. doi: 10.1177/0016986210383155. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg Robert J. Rethinking what we mean by intelligence. Phi Delta Kappan. 2020; 102 :36–41. doi: 10.1177/0031721720970700. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevens David. The academic support index: A tool for contextualizing student data. In: Worrell Frank C., Hughes Tammy L., Dixson Dante D., editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Applied School Psychology. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2020. pp. 138–54. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strenze Tarmo. Allocation of talent in society and its effect on economic development. Intelligence. 2013; 41 :193–202. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Su Rong. The three faces of interests: An integrative review of interest research in vocational, organizational, and educational psychology. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2020; 116 :103240. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• . Subotnik Rena F., Olszewski-Kubilius Paula, Worrell Frank C. Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2011; 12 :3–54. doi: 10.1177/1529100611418056. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson Lee A., Oehlert Jeremy. The etiology of giftedness. Learning and Individual Differences. 2010; 20 :298–307. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.11.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Toplak Maggie E., West Richard F., Stanovich Keith E. Real-world correlates of performance on heuristics and biases tasks in a community sample. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2017; 30 :541–54. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1973. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uttal David H., Meadow Nathaniel G., Tipton Elizabeth, Hand Linda L., Alden Alison R., Warren Christopher, Newcombe Nora S. The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin. 2013; 139 :352–402. doi: 10.1037/a0028446. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wadhwa Vivek, Saxenian AnnaLee, Rissing Ben A., Gereffi G. America’s new immigrant entreprenuers: Part I. Duke Science, Technology and Innovation Paper. 2007; 23 doi: 10.2139/ssrn. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wai Jonathan. Investigating America’s elite: Cognitive ability, education, and sex differences. Intelligence. 2013; 41 :203–11. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wai Jonathan. Experts are born, then made: Combining prospective and retrospective longitudinal data shows that cognitive ability matters. Intelligence. 2014; 45 :74–80. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2013.08.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wai Jonathan, Lakin Joni M. Finding the missing Einsteins: Expanding the breadth of cognitive and noncognitive measures used in academic services. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020; 63 :101920. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101920. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wai Jonathan, Lubinski David, Benbow Camilla P. Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2009; 101 :817–35. doi: 10.1037/a0016127. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wai Jonathan, Lubinski David, Benbow Camilla P., Steiger James H. Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2010; 102 :860–71. doi: 10.1037/a0019454. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wai Jonathan, Worrell Frank C. How talented low-income kids are left behind. Phi Delta Kappan. 2020; 102 :26–29. doi: 10.1177/0031721720978058. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wai Jonathan, Worrell Frank C. Helping disadvantaged and spatially talented students fulfill their potential: Related and neglected national resources. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2016; 3 :122–28. doi: 10.1177/2372732215621310. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Worrell Frank C., Dixson Dante D. Recruiting and retaining underrepresented gifted students. In: Pfeiffer Steven I., editor. Handbook of Giftedness in Children. 2nd ed. Springer; New York: 2018. pp. 209–26. [ Google Scholar ]

The Hechinger Report

Covering Innovation & Inequality in Education

PROOF POINTS: What research tells us about gifted education

Share this:

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

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

Get important education news and analysis delivered straight to your inbox

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

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

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

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

More on GIFTED EDUCATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles

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

Join us today.

Jill Barshay SENIOR REPORTER

(212)... More by Jill Barshay

Letters to the Editor

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

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

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most Sincerely,

Sandra Kay, EdD

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

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

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

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

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Submit a letter

• Publisher Home

• About the Journal
• Editorial Team
• Article Processing Fee
• Privacy Statement
• Crossmark Policy
• Copyright Statement
• GDPR Policy
• Open Access Policy
• Publication Ethics Statement
• Author Guidelines
• Announcements

Gifted and Talented Students “Underachievement” and Intervention: A Case Study

• Suganty Kanapathy  

Suganty Kanapathy

Search for the other articles from the author in:

• Nursakinah binti Mat Hazir  

Nursakinah binti Mat Hazir

• Hawa Aqilah binti Hamuzan  

Hawa Aqilah binti Hamuzan

• Premanarayani Menon  

Premanarayani Menon

• You Huay Woon  

You Huay Woon

Abstract Views 1283

Downloads 459

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Gifted and talented students are known as highly potential students, who always seek for challenging educational circle to ensure such students are able to make progress. Number of different reasons lead to gifted and talented students’ academic underachievement. Thus, there is a need to develop strategies for uplifting the underachieving gifted and talented students and the intervention plan. The intervention plan could differ from one gifted and talented student to another. This study examines gifted and talented students’ underachievement in Chemistry. In this study, both qualitative and quantitative studies were conducted. A survey was carried out involving 63 gifted and talented students from Pusat GENIUS@Pintar Negara. The data obtained was analysed using SPSS. The finding shows that gifted and talented students are interested in learning Chemistry, however continuous motivation from both peers and teachers plays a crucial role in leading towards success.