Answer 6 questions. 50words/each

Evidence for Gifted Education

125 Talent Development & Excellence

Vol. 5, No. 1, 2013, 125–137

Questioning the Unquestionable: Reviewing the

Evidence for the Efficacy of Gifted Education Samuel D. Mandelman

1 and Elena L. Grigorenko

1,2,3*

Abstract: Gifted education has had a long history in the US and as a result its efficacy

is often taken for granted. In this article, the most widely used definitions and

assessments in gifted education will be reviewed. The evidence for the most common

educational provisions offered to the gifted – acceleration and ability grouping – as

well as gifted education studies from the field of economics and the long-terms

benefits of gifted education will be discussed. Finally, an analysis of the existing

evidence and suggested future directions will be presented.

Keywords:

gifted education, efficacy, ability grouping, acceleration

Gifted education has had a relatively long history in the US, and has existed in one form or

another for almost one hundred and fifty years. Tannenbaum (1958) reports that formal

gifted education in the US started in the 1860s when the St. Louis school system started

making academic accommodations for the gifted. This long history may help to explain

why if anyone, a layperson or a professional, is asked the fundamental question as to

whether gifted education works, you will almost certainly get an immediate and emphatic

‘yes’. The question is on what basis is this claim made? Is there any empirical evidence for

a claim of such great import? Or is this based on their implicit theories and then what are

these implicit theories are based on?

Unfortunately we no longer have the luxury of relying on implicit theories alone,

regardless of what it is they are based on, rather we must carefully evaluate the current

practices of gifted education. With ever increasing international competition and a global

knowledge economy, the US needs to keep pace with the world around us. Historically it

has taken events such as the launch of Sputnik to spur US education officials to talk about

gifted education. We are at such a point again. US school children are falling behind, as

illustrated by international academic assessments such as TIMSS, PISA, and PIRLS

(Provasnik, Gonzales, & Miller, 2009). The US is not the leader in any of the subject areas

(reading, math and/or science) assessed by these international efforts. The US ranking

continues to slip in these areas with every new administration of these assessments. On

the PISA assessments, US 15-year olds scored lower than the OECD average (Provasnik, et

al., 2009). Might this mean that there is a threat to the future of the US’s edge in the

domains of intellectual pursuit? And how might these worries impact the country’s

policies and practices toward its education for the intellectually gifted? If the supposed

function of gifted education is to develop a country’s intellectual and human capital

(Mandelman, Tan, Aljughaiman, & Grigorenko, 2010; Subotnik & Rickoff, 2010), it is what is

at stake and is the impetus for this conversation.

Our objective here is to offer an overview of the most common practices in gifted

education and review the empirical evidence of their outcomes. Albeit briefly, we will

review the definitions/models used and identification processes employed; we then will

1 Teachers College, Columbia University, USA

2 Yale University, USA

3 Moscow City University for Psychology and Education, Russian Federation

* Corresponding author: Child Study Center, Department of Psychology, Department of

Epidemiology & Public Health, Yale University, 230 South Frontage Road, New Haven, CT

06519-1124. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 (online)

2013 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence

http://www.iratde.org

S. D. Mandelman & E. L. Grigorenko

126

offer a review of the most common educational provisions offered to the gifted. We will

then turn to studies from the field of economics on gifted education and, finally, to

ostensible long-terms benefits of gifted education. Throughout the discourse presented

here, the concept of intellectual giftedness (IG) is defined as a display of a high-level of

intellectual potential across multiple or within a domain(s) of human performance, to the

extent that the level of potential differentiates a person intellectually from his/her

reference groups.

The Status of the Field Today

Definitions

In the US, in many people’s minds in the general public and in the field of psychology,

intellectual giftedness is synonymous/interchangeable with high IQ (Borland, 2009;

Pfeiffer, 2011; Sternberg, Jarvin, & Grigorenko, 2011). While this view is quite prevalent,

there are great limitations of such notions and there are those who have proposed models

that are more complex and move beyond IQ as the sole criterion for intellectual

giftedness. While people and cultures have had conceptions of “smartness” (or

intelligence in modern terms) for thousands of years, only in the last century have models

been proposed that focus on measuring traits that are believed to comprise intelligence.

The oldest, most widely studied and still influential model of psychometric intelligence is

that of Charles E. Spearman. Spearman (1927) suggested that intelligence is comprised of

general and specific factors. The general factor suggested (commonly notated as g) is a

factor that underlies all cognitive abilities. This g factor is still widely used to describe

individual difference in cognitive ability. Cattell’s (1963) and Horn’s (1968) and Carroll’s

(1993) theories have been merged to create the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) three-stratum

theory of cognitive abilities, which is a modern transfiguration of Spearman’s g. It is the

above mentioned theories of intelligence that serve as the definition of intellectual

giftedness for those who subscribe to the g based conception. For a more comprehensive

review of these theories see Sternberg, Jarvin, and Grigorenko (2010).

Identification

The identification and selection processes for gifted programming are dominated by the

use of standardized tests of cognitive ability and achievement (Sternberg, et al., 2010). In a

comprehensive review of the literature, Mandelman, Tan, Aljughaiman and Grigorenko

(2010) demonstrated that, as of now, in the early part of the 21 st

century, the vast majority

of the cognitive ability measures used for the purposes of the identification of intellectual

gifts were based on the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (1993) theory of cognitive abilities.

Educational Accommodations

Gifted education comes in many varieties. Some of the most popular options for gifted

programming are acceleration, ability grouping, enrichment programs, pull out programs,

curriculum compacting and summer programs. Here we do a review of the literature on

the most widely studied empirically supported academic accommodation practices,

which are acceleration and ability grouping. Our primary focus while reviewing this

evidence will be on achievement and not the other variables included in the analyses.

Each one of the meta-analyses presented will be reviewed individually, to allow the

reader to evaluate the strengths and weakness of each effort and to gain an understanding

as to how each study contributes to the body of evidence on the educational provisions

covered.

Acceleration. Acceleration, the oldest form of gifted education in the US (Tannenbaum,

1958), has been the topic of empirical investigation dating back to at least the early1920s

(Rogers, 1991) and continuing until today. Acceleration as defined by Pressey (1949) is

“progress through an educational program at rates faster or at ages younger than

Evidence for Gifted Education

127

conventional” (p. 2). This definition allows for many practices to be categorized as

acceleration. Southern and Jones (2004) in a chapter of a comprehensive report on

acceleration titled “A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest

students” (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004) list and describe 18 different types of

acceleration. These include early admission to kindergarten, early admission to first

grade, grade skipping, continuous progress, self-paced instruction, subject matter

acceleration/partial acceleration, combined classes, curriculum compacting, telescoping

curriculum, mentoring, extra-curricular programs, correspondence courses, early

graduation, concurrent/dual enrollment, advanced placement, credit by examination,

acceleration in college, early entrance into middle school, high school, or college.

The strongest and most widely cited evidence that gifted education, and more specifically

that acceleration works, rely on five meta-analyses that have been completed over the last

thirty years (Kent, 1992; J. A. Kulik, 2004; J. A. Kulik & C.-L. C. Kulik, 1984; Rogers, 1991;

Steenbergen-Hu & Moon, 2011). Each of the meta-analyses on acceleration conducted to

date will be briefly summarized. It is important to note, because meta-analyses make use

of data from various studies, the details of each study are often unavailable and therefore

do not allow for direct comparisons of the studies. For the purposes of our discussion, it

would be important to know the identification criteria used in each of the studies that are

included in these meta-analyses. This is particularly important in a field that uses a wide

range of identification criteria.

Kulik and Kulik (1984) in the first published meta-analysis on acceleration, found that

when students, who were accelerated in particular academic subjects, were compared to

students of the same age, who were not accelerated, the students who were accelerated

gained almost a full grade level of performance on their non-accelerated peers, as

measured by standardized tests in the subjects in which they were accelerated. An effect

size of .88 was found and is considered to be a large effect (the magnitude of all of the

effect sizes reported are described based on Cohen, 1977). Kulik and Kulik (1984) also

demonstrated that accelerated students were able to perform as well as their older peers

in the subjects that they were accelerated in.

Rogers (1991) completed a best evidence synthesis on 314 published studies that

reported results on 12 different kinds of acceleration (early entrance to school, grade

skipping, nongraded classrooms, curriculum compaction, grade telescoping, concurrent

enrollment, subject acceleration, advanced placement, mentorship, credit by examination,

early admission to college and combined accelerative options). Significant effect sizes

> .30 were found for all but three (concurrent enrollment, advanced placement, combined

accelerative options) of the 12 acceleration options. The outcome measure depended on

the form of acceleration used, with teacher ratings, standardized tests, and school records

being the most widely used outcome measure. The average effect size for all academic

outcomes was statistically significant and substantial (.57).

Kent (1992) conducted a meta-analysis focusing on a very wide range of social and

emotional outcomes of acceleration (see Kent, 1992, pp. 77–79 for a full listing of the

outcomes included). The author explained that the rationale for this analysis was that the

academic benefits of acceleration had been previously investigated and were shown to be

effective, while the social and emotional implications were not as clear. The meta-analysis

included 23 studies and its results suggested that the overall effects of acceleration (effect

size .13) were positive and any negative effects were minimal.

In another meta-analysis by the Kuliks (2004), 26 studies that had previously been

included in the three preceding meta-analyses were analyzed. As was the finding in the

previous analyses, students who were accelerated, when compared with students of the

same age that were not accelerated, gained almost a full grade level of performance on

achievement tests on their non-accelerated peers (median effect size .80, which is

considered to be large). Kulik (2004) also found that accelerated students were able to

perform as well as older peers on exams.

S. D. Mandelman & E. L. Grigorenko

128

The most recent meta-analysis on acceleration was completed by Steenbergen-Hu and

Moon (2011) and covered the literature totaling 38 studies between 1984 and 2008.

Steenbergen-Hu and Moon’s (2011) findings were consistent with the previously

presented meta-analyses and demonstrated that acceleration was positive for the

accelerated students. Yet, while the overall effect was encouraging (.18), it was not

statistically significant. The largest effect and only significant finding (0.39) was when

accelerated students were compared to their age peers on achievement. This study, like

the ones before it, also examined the social and emotional impact of acceleration. The

findings were positive, although not statistically significant, and the effects were not as

large as those on achievement.

Thus, the literature presents a generally positive landscape of findings on acceleration as

an accommodation for the gifted. While the landscape is positive, the overall statistical

significance indicators of these findings are mixed. Therefore, all that can be said here is

that the results are promising, but inconclusive, and further carefully designed and

sufficiently powered research is needed to help resolve this inconsistency in significance

of the findings.

Grouping. The other most widely used educational accommodation is that of ability

grouping, where students are grouped in various configurations by ability. The practice of

ability grouping is one of the most controversial issues in education. Tieso (2003) explains

that the great level of controversy surrounding this issue has caused, to some degree,

research on it to be stopped. The controversy stems from the claims that ability grouping

is racist and maintains existing social inequities (Oakes, 1985). Other concerns about

students’ academic self-concept have been raised (for a review on academic self concept

see Mandelman, Tan, Kornilov, Sternberg, & Grigorenko, 2010). It is important to note that

the use of terms, such as tracking and streaming, have largely been discontinued in the

US, as have the corresponding practices. The term ‘tracking’ connotes a system in which

once students were assessed and placed, their education placement could not be

changed (Tieso, 2003). Ability grouping, on the other hand, allows for regular reevaluation

of students’ performance and changes in their placement to be made accordingly. Here

we will review the major meta-analyses that serve as the empirical basis for ability

grouping.

Kulik and Kulik (1982) conducted a meta-analysis on 51 studies on ability grouping in

secondary schools. They found the average effect size on achievement for student

grouping was .10. In a secondary analysis considering only 14 selected studies (which

were included in the overall analyses as well) that explored the effects of grouping in the

form of gifted programming on the gifted, Kulik found it to be .33, more than three times

the average effect size.

Kulik and Kulik (1984) conducted another meta-analysis on ability grouping, this time in

elementary school. This analysis included 31 separate studies. The analysis of 28 studies

found an effect size of .19 for the general population, meaning that grouped students on

average gained 2 months of achievement over their non-grouped peers. In studies where

the target population was gifted students, the effect size was .49, meaning that they gained

almost a half a grade over their non-grouped peers.

By contrast, Slavin (1987), in a best-evidence synthesis on ability grouping in elementary

school, reviewed 14 studies in which students were assigned to a self-contained classroom

based on ability, and found the effect size on student achievement to be 0. For subject

grouping in math and science, Slavin (1987) could not make a conclusive finding due to

the number and quality of studies. For the Joplin Plan 1 for grouping, there was a .45

median effect size found. For within-class grouping the effect size for high achievers was

.41.

Slavin (1990), in yet another best-evidence synthesis on ability grouping in secondary

schools, found that ability grouping had no effect on student achievement. Fifteen studies

included in the analysis, that focused on ability and achievement level, found median

Evidence for Gifted Education

129

effect sizes of +.01 for high achievers, -.08 for average achievers, and -.02 for low

achievers. Effect sizes that are this small are so close to zero that they are treated, in fact,

as zero.

Kulik and Kulik (1992) conducted a meta-analysis that included the studies from their

earlier work (C.-L. C. Kulik & Kulik, 1982; C.-L. C. Kulik & J. A. Kulik, 1984) and the work of

Slavin (1987, 1990). Their reanalysis of multi-level classes, in which students in a given

grade were divided into separate classes based on ability, was in line with previous

findings that multi-level grouping had zero effect on student achievement. When studies

presented results separated by ability levels, the average effect size for high ability

learners was .10, whereas middle and low ability groups effect sizes were -0.02 and -0.01,

respectively on measures of achievement. In a cross-grade Joplin Plan like grouping,

where the curriculum is adjusted to meet the needs of that particular mixed-grade group,

the average effect size was .30. For within class grouping, which involves curriculum

differentiation for each group, there was an average effect size of .25. For special

programs and grouping for the gifted, the average effect size was .41. Kulik and Kulik

(1992) concluded that grouping can be beneficial, primarily as a result of curricular

adjustments, and it is most beneficial for high ability students.

To summarize, the evidence on grouping is conflicting. Slavin’s (1987, 1990) overall null

findings, except for some subject specific grouping plans, and the somewhat mixed

results of the Kuliks (although for gifted students the findings were positive and

consistent; C.-L. C. Kulik & Kulik, 1982; C.-L. C. Kulik & J. A. Kulik, 1984; J. A. Kulik & Kulik,

1992), certainly causes one to question really how strongly this practice is empirically

supported. A practice that has such a long history, and that has been so widely used,

should be able to produce far more robust results. If this mixed evidence is the best

evidence for this practice, along with Oakes’s (1985) concerns of inequality, it is no

wonder that there continues to be great controversy and skepticism surrounding the

practice of grouping.

Economics

There is very little literature on the efficacy of gifted education in general. However, there

are a number of studies that come from the field and literature of economics that assess

the efficacy of gifted education. Although the premise and methodology of these studies

are different from what is typically used in effectiveness/efficacy studies in education,

these studies are informative in many ways as they pertain to the discourse here.

Correspondingly, here we will highlight some selected research studies from the field of

economics that considered the efficacy of gifted education.

Bui, Craig and Imberman (2011), in research that was covered in the national media (Shea,

2011), conducted a study employing a regression discontinuity design. In this design,

participants are assigned to groups based on a cut-off score, and then the outcome

measures are compared to evaluate the effect that a program has. In this study, the authors

compared groups of students, whose scores were right above the cut-off score for

admission to gifted programming, to those who were right below the cut-off score. They

found no significant difference in achievement between the two groups, despite the fact

that one of the groups was enrolled in a gifted program for a year and half. In a second

analysis, comparing students, who were randomly selected to attend a magnet school, to

their equally able peers from the same lottery pool, who were not selected, little

difference was found except for a small difference in science achievement among the

groups. The authors found these results surprising, as the selected students were grouped

with students of higher ability than those who were not selected, and there was

adjustment of the curriculum to meet their special academic needs.

There are two other studies of interest that also use regression discontinuity methods to

evaluate gifted programming, but these studies focus on prestigious exam schools

(specialized schools for which entrance exams are given to be eligible for enrollment) in

S. D. Mandelman & E. L. Grigorenko

130

New York and Boston. Considering a number of academic outcome measures (state

standardized tests, achievement tests, PSAT and SAT scores, and AP scores),

Abdulkadiroglu, Angrist and Pathak (2011) found little to no evidence for gains in

academic achievement for enrolled students, despite having a more challenging

curriculum and more able peers. In another study employing the same research methods,

and also investigating New York exam schools, Dobbie and Fryer (2011) found that

attending an exam school had little impact on reading and writing sections of the SAT and

a small impact on the math portion of the SAT. While considering the findings of the three

studies presented above, it is important to understand that because of the research design

utilized (regression discontinuity), findings presented pertain to the groups of students

whose scores were right above or right below the cut-off for the gifted programming.

These findings may not extend to those students whose scores are well above or below

the cut-off.

Thus, the results from the above-mentioned studies were consistent and somewhat

disconcerting. There was no evidence that these gifted programs had an impact on the

students who attended them.

Long-Term Benefits

There are few studies that carefully evaluate long-term effects of being identified and/or

educated as a gifted student (Delcourt, Cornell, & Goldberg, 2007; Subotnik, Edmiston, &

Rayhack, 2007). The scarcity of empirical evidence has been used by some (Borland,

2005) to fundamentally question gifted education as a practice. In the limited literature

base that does exist, the strongest of the empirical support comes from the Study of

Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY; Lubinski, 2004; Lubinski, Benbow, Webb, &

Bleske-Rechek, 2006; Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow, 2001), which has produced

more than 30 years of longitudinal research. Lubinski and colleagues (2001)

demonstrated that students who were identified in talent searches using the SAT 2 attained

PhD(s) at 50 times the rate of those in the general population. Similarly, Lubinski and

colleagues (2006) studied academic and other accomplishments, and found that those

identified as gifted at age 13 using the SAT, were comparable to those in top graduate

programs of their respective fields. The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth has

investigated various outcomes including attaining PhD(s), getting tenure track positions at

top universities, the number of patents secured, income and life quality, which

demonstrates how vital it is to identify and serve the gifted (Lubinski, 2004; Lubinski, et al.,

2006; Lubinski, et al., 2001; Park, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2007).

As demonstrated by the research coming out of SMPY, identification of great intellectual

abilities and providing for them educationally can have a profound impact on their long-

term accomplishments. A very large percentage of the students who were identified by

SMPY, participated in acceleration and ability grouping in its varying form, and had very

positive feelings about being able to partake in such educational opportunities. They

viewed these opportunities as being a vital part of their educational experience

(Lubinski, 2004; Lubinski, et al., 2001).

Cross-Roads of Gifted Education

Here we briefly review and outline some of the primary findings covered in the preceding

sections.

The most prevalent model of intelligence and giftedness used in the USA is the g-

factor-based model.

The most widely used assessments for identifying gifted students are based on the theoretical framework of g.

The two most popular academic accommodations for the gifted are acceleration and grouping.

Evidence for Gifted Education

131

There are five meta-analyses on acceleration, showing positive effects with different effect sizes and varying levels of statistical significance (from not significant to large

median effect sizes of .80).

There are five meta-analyses on grouping with conflicting results (ranging from 0 effect to the largest effect of .49, which is considered a moderate effect size, and

which was found with gifted students).

The economics literature on the efficacy of gifted programming and exam schools found that attending these programs and schools had little academic impact on the

students.

One of the major findings of the very limited literature on the long-term benefits show multiple effects, for example, that those who are identified as intellectually gifted

attain doctoral degrees at 50 times the rate of the general population.

In evaluating the evidence presented here, it is no surprise that the field of gifted

education has been unable to move forward as it should have. Let us critically review the

observations presented above. The most common definition of intellectual giftedness

used today is 85 years old, and it is so narrow that it fails to capture the now-demonstrated

complexity of human intelligence and, correspondingly, giftedness. The instruments that

are used to measure this narrow construct of intelligence have changed little since the

first intelligence test that was created a century ago. These tests consistently fail to

identify many gifted individuals, especially those of diverse learning profiles and

minority groups (Chart, Grigorenko, & Sternberg, 2008; Ford & Moore, 2006; Gallagher,

2005; Gordon & Bridglall, 2005). The best empirical evidence for the educational

accommodations for gifted education is in the 10 meta-analyses that generated mixed

findings. It is disconcerting that a field that has been around for 150 years yields such a

limited body of empirical support. The strongest findings (among the very mixed

findings) of the studies on educational accommodations are that accelerated students

gain at most a year on their non-accelerated peers. To what advantage is that, at best, a

year less of school? The clearest long-term benefit of gifted education is getting PhD(s) at

50 times the base rate; not to minimize this great accomplishment in any way, but is this

the true objective of gifted education?

The general lack of literature on gifted education and the quality of the existing literature

are disheartening, and trigger one to think critically. If we believe that there is a construct

of intelligence and giftedness, and that it can be identified and educational provisions

should be made for those who possess it, why is it that there is so little empirical support

for the educational provisions made? Why has more not been done to move the field

forward?

One possible explanation for the lack of progress in gifted education is the enduring

disconnect between the definitions/identification methods, the educational

accommodations, the desired outcomes of gifted education, and the societal needs. The

definition and the desired outcome must be clearly connected and inform each other, with

the definition guiding the true desired outcome and vice versa. The most important

question in this process is, what is the ultimate purpose of gifted education? If this

purpose could be made entirely clear, then definitions would have to be updated to

clearly reflect the desired outcomes. In turn, the identification tools would also have to be

updated to match the definition and the desired outcome. The educational provisions

made for the gifted students would be clearly in line with the desired outcome and would

thus make it possible to carefully examine the efficacy of gifted education. If the field

were to do this, it would not only address the well-known issues with the definition and

identification tools that draw so much criticism, it would also be able to make educational

accommodations that can be empirically supported and validated, gaining the field

greater credibility.

S. D. Mandelman & E. L. Grigorenko

132

A Possible Step Forward

Robert J. Sternberg’s theory, while not being the only or the definitive answer to the

problem, moves in the right direction in addressing many of the issues. Robert J.

Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence (1985, 1988, 1996, 1999, 2005)

offers a definition that appreciates and captures the complexity of human intellectual

ability, serves as the basis of a set of identification tools that clearly match the definition,

suggests educational provisions that are in line with the rest of the components and finally

offers a desired outcome that is part and parcel of the definition.

While each of these elements will be covered in detail, here we offer a summary of why

we believe this model can help move gifted education forward. Sternberg’s definition of

intelligence suggests a more comprehensive model of human ability that includes

analytical, creative and practical abilities. The theory-based assessments (e.g., the Aurora

battery, Chart, et al., 2008; Kornilov, Tan, Elliott, Sternberg, & Grigorenko, 2011; Sternberg,

2010; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Jarvin, 2006; Sternberg & The Rainbow Project

Collaborators, 2005, 2006) have been shown to effectively identify those who were

previously unidentified with traditional methods.

The educational provisions for the gifted do not necessitate acceleration or ability

grouping, as the objective of gifted education according to this model is for the individual

to be exposed to rich and diverse experiences, as exposure to different kinds of

information, in different ways, and in different contexts, can allow students to further

develop their abilities (analytical, creative and practical) and use their strengths to

compensate for their weaknesses (for a discussion of ability & environmental interaction

see Barab & Plucker, 2002). The focus of this model is on the individuals developing and

maximizing their potential to the fullest. The desired outcome is set by the definition of

successful intelligence, which defines success as what is dictated by the sociocultural

context of the individual.

Sternberg’s theory addresses many of the issues presented above. The theory’s most

widely known facet concerns the interplay among three abilities, which together with

higher order components, combine to make up Successful Intelligence. The three abilities

highlighted in this theory are analytical, practical and creative. A successfully intelligent

person does not necessarily have to possess high levels of each of these abilities to be

considered intelligent; rather they must recognize their own strengths and weaknesses

and create compensatory strategies that rely on their strengths.

Successful intelligence is defined as the integrated set of abilities needed to attain

success in life, however an individual defines it within his or her sociocultural context.

Successfully intelligent people adapt to, shape, and select environments through a

balance in their use of analytical, creative and practical abilities. According to this view,

intelligence and success are defined beyond what happens in school to the broader

context of what happens in life. Therefore, early recognition of and teaching to these

component abilities of intelligence can set children on a road to success that will last well

beyond their time in school. We argue that this theory, while not being the only or the

definitive answer to the problem, moves in the right direction in addressing many of the

issues; it offers a definition that appreciates and captures the complexity of human

intellectual ability, is the basis of a set of identification tools that clearly match the

definition, suggests educational provisions that are in line with the rest of the components

and finally offers a desired outcome that is part and parcel of the definition.

There are a number of important features of the theory of successful intelligence that

warrant highlighting. The abilities that lie at the heart of Sternberg’s theory of successful

intelligence differentiate it from the classical g conception of intelligence. Sternberg’s

model suggests that the balanced use of the three abilities (analytical, creative and

practical), not one general ability allows one to succeed in life. Sternberg’s definition goes

beyond Western ideas of intelligence, which are largely based on IQ scores and

standardized educational assessments. It recognizes that those ideas are limited, as the

Evidence for Gifted Education

133

abilities measured by these tests do not have the same importance everywhere in the

world, and are inappropriate measures of success in many places. Instead Sternberg

acknowledges that success is socially constructed, and therefore one’s socio-cultural

context must dictate what success is. In most cultures there are widely agreed upon

definitions of success. Success is not defined by the individual, but rather by the socio-

cultural context in which the individual finds him- or herself. The strength of this theory is

that the abilites included in this theory are applicable in all socio-cultural contexts and

will allow the individual in them to succeed.

However, the theory is not without weaknesses. Thus, it would have been wonderful to see

more empirical attempts at exploration and validation of the theory on different, both

gifted and not-so-labeled individuals. It has been an issue, however, mostly because of the

lack of instrumentation that is convenient and portable. The theory assumes that its

abilities (particularly practical and creative) may be assessed fairly, that is, taking into

account varying socio-cultural contexts and approximating the content of human activities

that are tapped while being tested, to those that are meaningful to people’s lives (as

opposed to often artificial situations pertaining to schooling and to nothing else). Thus, the

very assumption that the theory requires valid measurements often becomes an

impediment to any broad empirical verification. Indeed, measurements that are reflective

of cultural contexts and real life activities are difficult to construct and disseminate. Yet,

with the utilization of the Aurora battery around the world (Tan et al., 2009) and a growing

accumulation of the corresponding empirical data, we remain hopeful to a possibility to

conduct meta-analytic investigations (similar to those described above) with a multitude

of independent studies on the theory of successful intelligence and its utilization in gifted

education.

Conclusion

We have presented above the best evidence for the efficacy of gifted education, and a

model that we believe addresses some of the issues that we highlighted. The evidence

upon which gifted education practices are based is at best very limited. Although the

meta-analyses covered above are the most widely cited evidence for gifted education,

and particularly for acceleration and grouping, a careful review of the results does not

offer clear broad-based support. Acceleration, being the most supported practice, has a

mixture of significant and non-significant findings. It is important to note that the majority

of the significant findings are only when the accelerated group is compared to a non-

accelerated group of students of the same age. While the literature covered other

comparisons, only the same age comparisons were significant, signaling that while the

findings were significant, they may not be truly as robust as they seem. This, in and of

itself, may not be troubling to many, but when you consider that this is the best evidence

for all of gifted education, it is in fact worrisome.

The other most common educational provision for the gifted is ability grouping. The

evidence for this practice is even more conflicting. With the largest effects being of

moderate size, and many of the grouping options having no effect at all, along with the

social concerns surrounding this practice, we must be careful when promoting this option

as being successful and widely empirically supported. The evidence offered in the

economics literature on gifted programming is clear in stating that the programs

investigated had little to no effect on the students that attended them. Finally, the best

evidence for the long-term effects of gifted education is that the gifted get PhDs at 50

times the base rate – an outcome that is not necessarily considered the goal of gifted

education.

Where does all of this leave us as a field? The field of gifted education has been around

for 150 years and this is the best evidence that we have to offer. As a field, we must make

an honest assessment of the state of affairs and realize that the evidence in support of

gifted education is not as strong as many would like to believe. If the field is to move

forward, something needs to be done. We put forth a suggestion as to why the field and its

S. D. Mandelman & E. L. Grigorenko

134

evidence is in this state. The elements of gifted education are simply not in line with each

other. There is a disconnect between the definitions, identification methods, programming

and desired outcomes. For gifted education to be successful we must ask what is truly the

ultimate goal of gifted education. Without this vital step it is impossible for the field to

move forward. Once the ultimate goal of gifted education has been made clear, the

definition of gifted must be aligned with the ultimate goal. Identification methods must be

updated to match the definition and desired outcome, and the educational

accommodations must be a means to allow one to meet the ultimate goal. Without the

alignment of these elements, the field will remain in the state that it is in. There may not be

one universally agreed upon ultimate goal or definition, but within a program, school,

school system, state, or country, the decision makers must make sure that the definition,

identification tools, and educational provisions are aligned with their ultimate goal.

While not necessarily the only answer to this problem, the model of Robert J. Sternberg

presented above addresses many of these issues. This model has a clear definition of

success that is dictated by the socio-cultural context, and a definition of intelligence that is

multifaceted and is directly concerned with the desired outcome. The abilities included in

the definition are a means of achieving the ultimate goal, which is developing one’s

potential and abilities to the greatest extent possible, in order to achieve success as

defined by a specific culture.

It is our hope that this discussion, if nothing else, causes one to think about the current

practices of gifted education, and critically review the empirical support for them. Once

this takes place, we are confident that collectively as a field, we can move forward by

aligning all of the elements of gifted education, allowing for rigorous empirical

investigations of the field’s practices.

Reference Notes

1 The Joplin Plan was developed by Cecil Floyd (1954) for the public school system in

Joplin, Missouri. In this plan, students across different (e.g. 4 th

,5 th

,6 th

) grades are

grouped together based on their ability level for a subject, such as reading, while for the

rest of the day they are in their grade level classroom.

2 Scholastic Assessment Test: a standardized test of achieving, which is a widely used

measure for college admissions. This assessment is traditionally taken in 11th grade or

the beginning of 12th grade.

Acknowledgements

The preparation of this essay was supported, in part, by the generous gift from Karen

Jensen Neff and Charles Neff who supported the Aurora Project. Without their

encouragement and help this work would have never happened.

References

Abdulkadiroglu, A., Angrist, J. D., & Pathak, P. A.

(2011). The elite illusion: Achievement effects

at Boston and New York exam schools. National

Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper

Series, No. 17264.

Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or

smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent

development in an age of situated

approaches to knowing and learning.

Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–182.

Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without

gifted children. In R. J. Sternberg, Davidson, J.

E. (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness, second

edition (pp. 1–19). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Borland, J. H. (2009). Myth 2: The gifted constitute

Evidence for Gifted Education

135

3% to 5% of the population. Moreover,

giftedness equals high IQ, which Is a stable

measure of aptitude. Gifted Child Quarterly,

53, 236–238.

Bui, S. A., Craig, S. G., & Imberman, S. A. (2011). Is

gifted education a bright idea? Assessing the

impact of gifted and talented programs on

achievement. National Bureau of Economic

Research Working Paper Series, No. 17089.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A

survey of factor-analytic studies. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and

crystallized intelligence: A critical

experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology,

54, 1–22.

Chart, H., Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J.

(2008). Identification: The Aurora Battery. In J.

A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical

issues and practices in gifted education (pp.

281–301). Waco, TX: Prufrock.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the

behavioral sciences. New York: Academic

Press.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M.

(Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools

hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1–

2; The Templeton National Report on

Acceleration). West Conshohocken, PA: John

Templeton Foundation.

Delcourt, M. A. B., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D.

(2007). Cognitive and affective learning

outcomes of gifted elementary school

students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 359–381.

Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. G., Jr. (2011). Exam high

schools and academic achievement: Evidence

from New York City. National Bureau of

Economic Research Working Paper Series,

No. 17286.

Floyd, C. (1954). Meeting children’s reading Needs

in the middle grades: A preliminary report.

The Elementary School Journal, 55, 99–103.

Ford, D. Y., & Moore, J. L., III. (2006). Being gifted

and adolescent: Issues and needs of students

of color. In F. A. Dixon & S. M. Moon (Eds.),

The handbook of secondary gifted education

(pp. 113–136). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Gallagher, J. J. (2005). According to Jim Gallagher:

The role of race in gifted education. Roeper

Review, 27, 135.

Gordon, E. W., & Bridglall, B. L. (2005). Nurturing

talent in gifted students of color. In R. J.

Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions

of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 120–146). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Horn, J. L. (1968). Organization of abilities and the

development of intelligence. Psychological

Review, 75, 242–259.

Kent, S. D. (1992). The effects of acceleration on the

social and emotional development of gifted

elementary students: A meta-analysis.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 419.

(UMI No. 9316362).

Kornilov, S. A., Tan, M., Elliott, J. G., Sternberg, R. J.,

& Grigorenko, E. L. (2011). Gifted

identification with Aurora: Widening the

spotlight. Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment, 30, 117–133.

Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability

grouping on secondary school students: A

meta-analysis of evaluation findings.

American Educational Research Journal, 19,

415–428.

Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1984). Effects of ability

grouping on elementary school pupils: A

meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Psychological

Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of

acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline,

& M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived:

How schools hold back America’s brightest

students (Vol. 2, pp. 13–22). Iowa City:

University of Iowa.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1984). Effects of

accelerated instruction on students. Review of

Educational Research, 54, 409–425.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic

findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 36, 73–77.

Lubinski, D. (2004). Long-term effects of

educational acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S.

G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation

deceived: How schools hold back America’s

brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 23–37). Iowa

City: University of Iowa.

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Webb, R. M., & Bleske-

Rechek, A. (2006). Tracking exceptional

human capital over two decades.

Psychological Science, 17, 194–199.

Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., &

Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-

year follow-up of the profoundly gifted.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718–729.

Mandelman, S. D., Tan, M., Aljughaiman, A. M., &

Grigorenko, E. L. (2010). Intellectual

giftedness: Economic, political, cultural, and

psychological considerations. Learning and

Individual Differences, 20, 287–297.

Mandelman, S. D., Tan, M., Kornilov, S. A.,

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2010). The

metacognitive component of academic self-

concept: The development of a Triarchic Self-

Scale. Journal of Cognitive Education &

Psychology, 9, 73–86.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools

structure inequality. New Haven: Yale

University Press.

Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007).

Contrasting Intellectual Patterns Predict

Creativity in the Arts and Sciences.

Psychological Science, 18, 948–952.

Pfeiffer, S. I. (2011). Current Perspectives on the

identification and assessment of gifted

S. D. Mandelman & E. L. Grigorenko

136

students. Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment, 30, 3–9.

Pressey, S. L. (1949). Educational acceleration:

Appraisal of basic problems. Columbus: Ohio

State University.

Provasnik, S., Gonzales, P., & Miller, D. (2009).

Performance across international

assessments of student achievement: Special

supplement to The Condition of Education

2009 (NCES 2009-083). Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics,

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.

Department of Education.

Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping

practices to the education of the gifted and

talented learner (RBDM 9102). Storrs, CT: The

National Research Center on the Gifted and

Talented, University of Connecticut.

Shea, C. (2011, June 2). Do ‘gifted’ programs work?

[Blog post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.

com/ideas-market/2011/06/02/do-gifted-

programs-work/

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student

achievement in elementary schools: A best-

evidence synthesis. Review of Educational

Research, 57, 293–336.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability

grouping in secondary schools: A best-

evidence synthesis. Review of Educational

Research, 60, 471–499.

Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (2004). Types of

acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In N.

Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross

(Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold

back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp.

5–12). Iowa City: University of Iowa.

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. London:

Macmillian.

Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Moon, S. M. (2011). The

effects of acceleration on high-ability

learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 55, 39–53.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory

of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new

theory of human intelligence. New York:

Viking.

Sternberg, R. J. (1996). For whom does the bell

curve toll? It tolls for you. Journal of Quality

Learning, 6, 9–27.

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). A triarchic approach to the

understanding and assessment of

intelligence in multicultural populations.

Journal of School Psychology, 37, 145–159.

Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Intelligence. In K. J. Holyoak

& R. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of

thinking and reasoning (pp. 751–773). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Assessment of gifted

students for identification purposes: New

techniques for a new millennium. Learning

and Individual Differences, 20, 327–336.

Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Jarvin, L.

(2006). Identification of the gifted in the new

millennium: Two assessments for the broad

identification of gifted students. KEDI Journal

of Educational Policy, 3, 7–27.

Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., & Grigorenko, E. L.

(2010). Explorations in giftedness. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., & Grigorenko, E. L.

(2011). Explorations in giftedness. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & The Rainbow Project

Collaborators. (2005). Augmenting the SAT

through assessments of analytical, practical,

and creative skills. In W. Camara & E. Kimmel

(Eds.), Choosing students: Higher education

admission tools for the 21st century (pp. 159–

176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Sternberg, R. J., & The Rainbow Project

Collaborators. (2006). The Rainbow Project:

Enhancing the SAT through assessments of

analytical, practical and creative skills.

Intelligence, 34, 321–350.

Subotnik, R. F., Edmiston, A. M., & Rayhack, K. M.

(2007). Developing national policies in STEM

talent development: Obstacles and

opportunities. Science Education: Models &

Networking of Student Research Training

under 21, 16, 28–38.

Subotnik, R. F., & Rickoff, R. (2010). Should

eminence based on outstanding innovation

be the goal of gifted education and talent

development? Implications for policy and

research. Learning and Individual Differences,

20, 358–364.

Tan, M., Aljughaiman, A. M., Elliott, J. G., Kornilov, S.

A., Prieto, M., Bolden, D., et al. (2009).

Considering language, culture and cognitive

abilities : the international translation and

adaptation of the Aurora Assessment Battery.

In E. L. Grigorenko (Ed.), Multicultural

psychoeducational assessment (pp. 443–468).

New York: Springer Publishers.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1958). History of interest in the

gifted. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Education for the

gifted: The fifty-seventh yearbook for the

National Society for the Study of Education, Part

2 (pp. 21–38): Chicago, IL, US: National Society

for the Study of Education; Chicago, IL, US:

University of Chicago Press.

Tieso, C. L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just

tracking anymore. Roeper Review, 26, 29–36.

Evidence for Gifted Education

137

The Authors

Samuel D. Mandelman, M.Phil is a doctoral student at Teachers College,

Columbia University, where he is pursuing his Ph.D. in cognitive studies. Samuel

is a graduate research assistant in the EG Lab at Yale University Child Study

Center. His primary research interests are human intelligence and intellectual

giftedness.

Dr. Elena L. Grigorenko received her Ph.D. in general psychology from Moscow

State University, Russia and her Ph.D. in developmental psychology and

genetics from Yale University, U.S.A. Currently, Dr. Grigorenko is the Emily

Fraser Beede Professor of Developmental Disabilities, Child Studies,

Psychology, and Epidemiology and Public Health at Yale (USA) and Adjunct

Senior Research Scientist at Moscow City University for Psychology and

Education (Russia).

Copyright of Talent Development & Excellence is the property of International Research Association for Talent Development & Excellence (IRATDE) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.