Skip to content

Supporting Gifted and Talented Students

Principle · All principles
Evidence · 26 claims (8 for, 18 mixed) · 24 studies (11 review, 4 causal, 4 quant-synthesis, 3 theoretical, 1 associational, 1 qualitative), q1–q4 · 3 of 24 report an effect size · 22 claims rest on one study

Conditional relationship

This page owns how a teacher or designer plans ordinary class instruction for a student who already does, or quickly learns, what the class is about to be taught: a student identified as gifted or talented, or one who simply shows it on the current unit. For such a student, whose response to the unit's own work before or early in teaching shows the target already done unaided, replacing the practice they do not need with work at their level, either moving on to the next content sooner (acceleration) or going deeper and wider on the same content (enrichment), chosen from that response rather than from the label alone, is expected to produce continued progress on the subject (general-achievement, near-transfer) and continued engagement (motivation-affect, persistence) compared with keeping the student on grade-level practice they have already shown. The earlier page's warning stands beside it: without that accommodation, a student who started ahead may make little further progress and grow bored.

No claim in the wiki tests this relationship. None compares acceleration, enrichment, a blend of the two, or compacting the curriculum with keeping gifted students on grade-level work, and none follows a gifted student's progress or boredom under either. The claims the wiki holds bear on neighbouring parts: guidance that helps novices becoming redundant for learners who already hold the schema (cognitive-load experiments and a narrative review, not with students identified as gifted); adaptive tutoring systems that adjust difficulty to performance (meta-analyses, general populations); mastery pacing (positive on examinations, but apparently strongest for the weaker students in a class); cooperative learning with high-ability and gifted students (a digest reporting other researchers' work, which also records that no long-term research exists); praise for intelligence rather than effort (fifth graders); and, on identification, one issue brief, one narrative review and one witness's testimony on under-identification. The design below is therefore the earlier page's guidance, made concrete and labelled step by step.

The relationship is conditional on four things. What the student actually shows on this unit's work: a gifted label or a test score from another year does not say whether the student already does this unit's target; the response does, and expertise is domain-specific, so a student advanced in mathematics may be a novice in the next writing unit. Whether the replacement work is harder or only more: extra worksheets at the same level, or enrichment the teacher cannot engage with, is what the earlier page calls busywork, not accommodation. The kind of target: acceleration suits cumulative subjects where the next unit builds on this one (procedure, principle); enrichment suits targets that open outwards (complex-skill, a talent in music, art or writing). Who is identified at all: under-identification of culturally and linguistically diverse students, and of girls where a test score alone gates entry, is reported in the wiki's identification claims, so a plan that serves only labelled students may miss students who show the same response.

How the converted siblings sit beside this: Mastery Learning holds the general gate-correct-recheck relationship; this page applies the same gate at the top, letting a student who already meets the criterion move on rather than wait. Adaptive Learning holds adjusting task difficulty and support to measured performance, which is how acceleration within a class is usually run. Standardized Test Fairness and Bias holds the fairness of an identification decision made from a test score, including gifted identification; this page does not repeat its model, and follows it for who gets into a programme. Supporting Students with Intellectual Disabilities sits at the other tail of the same distribution and shares the rule that a classification sets neither a ceiling nor a floor. Provide a continuum of gifted services is the school-level version of the same idea.

Default design, while the relationship is untested

The earlier page's guidance, kept as a concrete default a teacher can act on and revise. Each step is a design proposal with its evidence status beside it.

  1. Find out what the student already does, on this unit, before teaching it. At the start of each unit give every student the same short pre-check built from the unit's end-of-unit task (10–15 minutes, the hardest items included), and record which parts each student does unaided. Do not plan from the label, an IQ score or last year's test. Untested proposal; it follows the earlier page's requirement to know the student "as an individual" and the domain-specific reading of expertise in Instructional guidance that helps novices can become redundant or counterproductive as expertise grows [+M] (cognitive-load experiments with trainees and a narrative review; not with students identified as gifted).
  2. Compact what the student has shown. As a labelled proposal: where a student does at least four in five of the pre-check's items unaided, excuse them from the practice on those parts (keep any part they missed, and keep the unit's end-of-unit check). Expect this to free roughly a third to a half of the unit's class time for that student. Untested numbers. The move rests on the redundancy of guidance for learners who already hold the schema (expertise reversal [+M]; Worked-example guidance becomes less effective as learner expertise increases [+M]), carried from lab and training studies to classes.
  3. Choose acceleration, enrichment or both from the response and the subject. If the student also does the next unit's pre-check well and the subject is cumulative, move them on in that subject (subject acceleration: work from the next unit or the next year's course, in class or online). If not, or the target opens outwards, give enrichment that is harder, not more: a task with an open problem, a real audience or a professional's standard (a proof of a general case, an original composition, a source analysis). Blend the two in most cases, as the earlier page advises. Untested proposal. Adaptive learning [+M] (tutoring systems that adjust difficulty to performance beat teacher-led large-group instruction in meta-analyses; general populations, not gifted students) supports running in-class acceleration through work that adjusts to the student's responses.
  4. Make the replacement work something the teacher can follow. Choose enrichment the teacher (or a named mentor) can read, question and give feedback on; set a contract with the student naming the task, the standard, the check-in dates and what the student hands in. The earlier page's constraint is that enrichment the teacher cannot engage with reads as busywork. Untested proposal.
  5. Keep the student in the class's shared work for part of each week. Plan whole-class discussions, labs and group tasks where the student takes a role that stretches them (the hardest sub-problem, the reviewer's role, the first draft of a general rule), not the role of explaining to others for most of the lesson. Evidence: cooperative learning with gifted and high-ability students [+W] (one 1993 digest reporting Johnson and Johnson's studies: higher mastery and more higher-level reasoning in cooperative than competitive or individual work; it also records that no long-term research exists). A position essay argues that all-day mixed-ability grouping asks gifted students to help slower learners (homogeneous grouping for reading, heterogeneous for discussion [~W]: the author's experience, no data).
  6. Name what the student did, not that they are gifted. Feedback names the strategy, effort or choice ("you tested the general case before trusting it"), and work is set hard enough that real struggle, and real effort to name, happens. Evidence: praise for intelligence rather than effort [+M] (fifth graders and a review of children's praise studies: ability praise left children more fragile after a later failure; general population, not tested with gifted students).
  7. Watch for boredom and underachievement as signals of a mismatch. When a student who did well starts handing in little or behaving badly, check first whether the work is below their level, before treating it as a conduct or motivation problem (the earlier page's point). Offer an adult who takes an interest (a mentor, a club, an extracurricular in the area of talent). Evidence: extracurricular involvement and adult mentorship are associated with reversal of gifted underachievement [+W] (one issue brief reporting earlier studies; associational). Do not read a student's own report of boredom as the measure of mismatch: in one retrieval-practice study self-rated boredom and frustration did not predict practice performance (no significant impact of frustration or boredom on practice performance [~W]; an exploratory affect model, not with gifted students), so check the level by a pre-check on the next unit's work, not by the complaint alone.
  8. Open the door by response, not only by label. Give the pre-check and the enrichment option to every student, and let any student who shows the response take the replacement work, labelled or not. Each year compare who is in gifted provision with the school's enrolment by group. Evidence: culturally and linguistically diverse students are underrepresented in gifted identification nationwide [~W] and teachers under-refer them [~W] (one 2008 issue brief); a narrative review attributes the under-representation to identification measures biased toward another cultural background (underrepresentation attributed to biased measures [~W]: the review's position, reported from Ford (2003), with no data on any measure). A label, or its absence, can also shape what a teacher offers: in one cohort of about 11,000 Dutch secondary students, the part of teachers' expectations not explained by prior achievement, IQ and motivation predicted performance up to five years later, more so for students with higher prior achievement (teacher expectation bias predicted later performance [~M]; associational, not a test of gifted provision). Offering the replacement work on the response, not the expectation, is the design's answer to both, and it is untested. For decisions from a test score see Standardized Test Fairness and Bias.
  9. Plan an arc across a term, not one lesson. A default arc, with untested quantities. In weeks 1–2 of a unit: pre-check, compact, and teacher-set extension work with a short check-in (5 minutes) twice a week. Weeks 3–6: the student chooses an enrichment or acceleration task from two or three the teacher can follow, works on it in the time freed by compacting (two to three class periods a week as a proposal), and meets the teacher or mentor weekly for 10 minutes with a draft. End of the unit: the student sits the same end-of-unit check as the class, and presents or hands in the extension product, to the class or a real audience where there is one. At the next unit, start again from the pre-check: a student who compacted one unit does not automatically compact the next. If after two weeks the student is still finishing everything easily, raise the level (the next unit's content, or a harder version of the task), not the amount.

When a condition is not met: if no time is freed because the student did not pass the pre-check, keep them in the class's teaching on the parts they missed and offer enrichment on the parts they showed; if the teacher cannot follow any enrichment the student wants, use subject acceleration through existing course material instead, or find a mentor before starting.

Fitting the design to a situation

The three facts that most change the decision:

  • What the student does now on this unit's own work. A student who does the end-of-unit task before teaching needs compacting and replacement work; one who learns faster but does not yet do it needs faster pacing within the unit, not removal from it. If a brief omits it, ask: what does the student do, unaided, on this unit's end-of-unit task before it is taught?
  • Whether the subject is cumulative and whether harder work is available. Acceleration needs a next unit, a next course or adaptive material to move into; enrichment needs a task the teacher or a mentor can follow. If omitted, ask: what comes after this unit, and who can read and judge the student's harder work?
  • How the student came to be identified, and who else shows the same response. Provision tied to a label and a test cut-off can miss students who show the response. If omitted, ask: how are students chosen for this provision, and could a student who is not labelled take it on the same evidence?
If the brief says… Then change… Basis
The student is a child in primary school, well ahead in reading or number Compact by pre-check within the class; give harder texts or problems in the same topic for the freed time; keep the student in class routines; review the arrangement every unit untested proposal; the earlier page's example of the advanced kindergarten reader who stops progressing
The student is an adolescent in secondary school, ahead in one subject Subject acceleration in that subject (the next course, online or with an older class), with the student staying with their year group for other subjects untested proposal; the earlier page's constraint that repeated grade-skipping opens large maturity gaps
Whole-grade acceleration (grade-skipping) is being considered Decide with the student, family and next teacher, on the student's work across subjects and their social readiness, for one grade at a time; set a review after the first term untested proposal; the earlier page records that acceleration works but not indefinitely, citing a chapter not held as a claim
The target is cumulative (procedure, principle, as in mathematics or a language's grammar) Prefer acceleration: move to the next unit's content once the pre-check is passed, through adaptive or self-paced material with a teacher check each week Intelligent tutoring systems improve achievement over non-individualised instruction [+M] (general populations, not gifted students); expertise reversal [+M] carried from training studies
The target opens outwards (complex-skill, writing, art, music, a research project) Prefer enrichment: an open task with a professional's standard and a real audience, with a mentor in the field where one can be found untested proposal; long expert development is described in Even the most talented performers need around 10 years of intense involvement [~W] (a review, chess, music, sport)
The talent is in music, art, sport or another field outside the academic subjects Count it: give access to training, a teacher or coach in the field, and practice time, and judge it by performance, not by an IQ score; when selecting for a squad, ensemble or programme, compare a student's performance with others of the same age within the year group and with the same amount of training so far, and re-select each year rather than once Accumulated deliberate practice distinguishes more from less accomplished musicians [~W] (a review reporting one retrospective study); relative-age effects bias selection into elite youth sports [~W] and early training produces adaptations misread as talent [~W] (the same review, reporting other studies); untested as a school design
One teacher, a full mixed class, several students ahead at different points Use one pre-check and two or three tiers of replacement work the teacher can run at once; check in with the ahead group together for 5 minutes twice a week rather than individually untested proposal
Scarce teacher time (a busy class, a gifted coordinator who visits weekly, volunteer mentors) Give the visiting adult one job each visit: read the latest draft, ask one question that raises the standard, and agree the next step and date; the contract carries the rest between visits untested proposal
Some students join remotely, or work from a phone or tablet at home Put the compacted student's replacement work and contract online; hold the weekly check-in as a short call; keep the student's role in the class's shared discussion when present untested proposal
Only a single session is available (a one-off enrichment day, a visiting class) Give one hard, open task with a model of the standard, time to attempt it, and feedback naming what the student did; do not claim it as provision untested proposal
The student is bored, handing in little or behaving badly Check the work's level first (a pre-check on the next unit); if it is below the student's level, change the work before treating the behaviour; offer a mentor or an extracurricular in the area of talent Extracurricular involvement and adult mentorship are associated with reversal of gifted underachievement [+W] (one issue brief, associational)
The student has low confidence, avoids hard work, or fears being wrong Set work hard enough that mistakes happen; name the student's strategy and effort, never "you're so smart"; show the student the improvement over drafts Praise for intelligence rather than effort [+M] (fifth graders, general population; not gifted students)
Identification is by a test score cut-off, or by teacher referral Screen every student, use the unit pre-check as a second route in, and compare provision with enrolment by group each year Underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students [~W], teacher under-referral [~W] (one issue brief); underrepresentation attributed to biased measures [~W] (a narrative review's position, no data); a talent search admitting by SAT score invited over 2,500 boys and 1,081 girls in one summer [~W] (one witness's testimony); see Standardized Test Fairness and Bias
The brief names its own routine (a school's gifted programme model, an extension menu, a published enrichment curriculum, its own rubric for advanced work) Keep it. Change only what the evidence and the earlier page say matters: a pre-check on the unit's own work before deciding, replacement work that is harder rather than more, feedback that names what the student did, and the student's own interests in choosing the task untested proposal
The brief's own rubric or criteria for the advanced work Use them, and raise the level by the task, not by substituting another rubric untested proposal
Adults in a work setting who are far ahead of a training course (an experienced hire in onboarding) Let them test out of modules by doing the module's task to its standard; give them the hardest cases or a role reviewing others' work for the freed time expertise reversal [+M] (electrical trainees, among others); untested as a test-out design
The product is for a real audience (a competition, an exhibition, a published piece, a presentation to experts) Plan the extension work towards it from the start, with the audience's standard as the criterion and at least one rehearsal or review by someone from that field untested proposal
Stakes are high (programme entry, a grade-skip, an accelerated exam entry) Decide on more than one source of evidence (the student's work across units, a pre-check on the next level, the student's own view), never a single score; record the decision and review it after one term Standardized Test Fairness and Bias for score-based decisions; Traditional gifted identification tests cannot fully determine learning potential [~W] (an argument in one review)

Nine of the eighteen rows cite a claim, and none of those claims tests the move in its row with gifted students. The cumulative-target and work-setting rows carry cognitive-load and tutoring evidence from general populations and trainees; the identification rows carry an issue brief and a testimony that report under-identification, not a tested remedy; the talent rows carry reviews of expert performance; the boredom and confidence rows carry an associational brief and praise experiments with children in general. The other rows are untested proposals.

Observation, state and explanation

What can be observed is a response to a task under stated conditions: the pre-check items done and missed, the time taken, the quality of the extension work against its standard, what the student did when the work became hard, and the end-of-unit check. "Gifted", "bored", "unmotivated" and "underachieving" are inferred states, and so is "has mastered the unit": a pre-check shows what the student did on those items that day.

Response Plausible explanations Observation that could change the interpretation
Passes the pre-check easily, every unit Ahead in this subject; the pre-check is too easy or does not sample the hardest part of the unit; the student learned the material outside school Add items from the next unit and a transfer item in a new form; ask the student to explain one answer.
Finishes class work fast, then disrupts or switches off Work below the student's level; work at the right level but without meaning to the student; a social or attention difficulty unrelated to level Give a harder version of the same task for a week and record behaviour; ask the student what they would rather be working on.
Grades fall in a student who did well The work became harder and the student has never had to struggle; boredom with work below level; trouble outside school; avoidance to stay with peers Look at which tasks are not done (the hard or the easy); talk with the student; check whether a mentor or extracurricular changes it.
Avoids extension work or chooses the easy option Fear of failing at something hard after always succeeding; the extension task is extra work, not replacement; the student values being with friends Make the extension replace, not add to, class work; let the student work on it with a peer; note what is said about mistakes.
Does well in one subject, average in another Domain-specific advancement (the usual case); the identification rested on one area Pre-check in each subject separately; do not carry compacting across subjects.
A student not identified as gifted does the pre-check as well as identified students Identification missed the student (referral, a test, language); the student developed since identification Offer the same replacement work; record it, and review the identification route.

These rows are proposals, untested with students as diagnostics. A pre-check is also teaching and practice, so record each one, and keep open the explanations that remain open rather than settling on the one that fits the label.

Evidence and qualifications

No claim in the wiki compares acceleration, enrichment or compacting with grade-level instruction for gifted students. The claims below test neighbouring parts.

  • Instructional guidance that helps novices can become redundant or counterproductive as expertise grows [+M]: three entries (a narrative review of cognitive-load experiments across five paradigms, three experiments with electrical trainees reading circuit diagrams, and a conceptual paper restating the review). Integrated explanations and worked examples helped less experienced learners and lost their advantage, or reversed, for learners who already held the schema; no effect sizes are printed. It supports removing practice and guidance a student has shown they do not need. It was not run with students identified as gifted, and it defines expertise per topic, not per student. Held at M, below the claim's cap, because it is carried to a different population.
  • Worked-example guidance becomes less effective as learner expertise increases [+M]: two entries (the same review and a synthesis on the transition from example study to problem solving); advanced learners benefit less from full worked examples, and example-heavy guidance should be reduced as learners move to independent problem solving. Same scope as above.
  • Intelligent tutoring systems improve achievement over non-individualised instruction [+M]: two meta-analyses of intelligent tutoring systems: higher achievement than teacher-led large-group instruction (g = 0.42), other computer-based instruction (g = 0.57) and textbooks or workbooks (g = 0.35), but no advantage over individual human tutoring or small-group instruction; a median of 0.66 SD over conventional instruction in 50 evaluations, depending heavily on whether tests were locally developed. It supports running acceleration through work that adjusts to performance; it is not a test with gifted students, and held at M for that reason.
  • Praise for intelligence, rather than for effort, after success undermines children's motivation and performance after a later failure [+M]: experiments with fifth graders and a narrative review of children's praise studies; ability praise led to performance goals and worse performance after a later failure than effort praise, moderated by age and gender. It bears directly on how a teacher talks to a student labelled gifted; general population.
  • Cooperative learning shows benefits for gifted and high-ability students, though long-term evidence is lacking [+W]: one 1993 ERIC digest (q2, review) reporting Johnson and Johnson's nine studies of high-ability and gifted students over 15 years (higher mastery and retention, more higher-level reasoning when working cooperatively), and Slavin's statement that there is no long-term research on ordinary cooperative learning with the gifted. No effect sizes; second-hand. It supports keeping gifted students in shared work for part of the week, and limits it to the short term.
  • Extracurricular involvement and adult mentorship are associated with reversal of gifted underachievement [+W]: one 2008 issue brief (q2, review r1) reporting earlier studies that gifted students in extracurricular activities are typically not underachievers and that students who reversed underachievement often cite an adult. Associational; not a test of offering a mentor.

Who is identified, and what a label does. Culturally and linguistically diverse students are underrepresented in gifted identification nationwide [~W] and teachers under-refer them [~W] rest on one 2008 issue brief (q2, review r1) reporting NCES enrolment and identification shares and summarising referral research; a narrative review attributes the under-representation to biased identification measures [~W] and argues that traditional identification tests cannot fully determine learning potential [~W] (one review, q2, citing earlier authors; no measure tested); and testimony at a 1987 hearing reported over 2,500 boys but 1,081 girls invited to a talent search that admitted by SAT score [~W] (one witness, one programme, one summer; it compares no admission routes). Together they support steps 1 and 8 (deciding from the unit's own work and opening the replacement work to any student who shows the response) as a way round a gate that misses students; none tests that remedy. Teacher expectation bias predicted Dutch secondary students' performance up to five years later [~M] (one associational cohort of about 11,000 students, effect larger for students with higher prior achievement) adds the risk that the label, or its absence, shapes what a teacher offers; it did not manipulate expectations.

Talent as developed, not fixed. One review from the expert-performance perspective (Ericsson et al., 2005, q2), reporting other studies, holds six of the wiki's claims: even the most talented performers need around 10 years of intense involvement to reach international level [~W]; accumulated deliberate practice distinguishes more from less accomplished musicians [~W]; relative-age effects bias selection into elite youth sports [~W] (when Belgium moved its soccer cohort cut-off, the most-selected birth months moved with it); early training produces adaptations that can be misattributed to innate talent [~W]; heritability of everyday abilities cannot be extrapolated to expert performance [+W]; and historical increases in peak performance contradict fixed innate upper limits [+W]. They qualify the earlier page's account of talent as a fixed endowment: part of what is selected as talent is age within a cohort and earlier access to training. That supports judging by current performance, re-selecting rather than selecting once, and giving access to training (the talent rows and step 8), and it supports the page's merged-in rule to define the giftedness construct before labelling. Chess, music and sport, reported second-hand; held at W, below the M the cap allows, because none is about classroom provision.

The limiting claims. Algebra ability level differences appear on both criteria with no treatment-by-ability interaction [~M]: in one 1972 comparison of two strategies for teaching verbal problems in algebra, high-ability students outscored intermediate and low-ability students on both criteria, but neither strategy worked better for one ability group than another. It is a reminder that "gifted students need a different method" is not established by the wiki's evidence; what differs here is the level and pace of the content, not a method. And Mastery learning improves outcomes [~M]: a meta-analysis of 108 controlled evaluations found positive effects of mastery programmes on examinations, apparently stronger for the weaker students in a class, with more student time on instructional tasks. A group-paced gate helps weaker students; it says nothing about the students who already meet the criterion, and a class that waits for everyone to pass holds them where they are, which is the problem this page addresses. Nor does the wiki hold an estimate of differentiation as such: a pooled effect for differentiated instruction [~W] rests on three studies with a 95% interval from −3.659 to 5.117, which establishes no effect for gifted students or anyone. The boredom signal in step 7 is qualified by no significant impact of frustration or boredom on practice performance [~W] (one exploratory affect model in a retrieval-practice study), and the grouping advice in step 5 by homogeneous grouping for reading, heterogeneous for discussion [~W] (a position essay, no data).

Learners, settings, outcomes and comparisons differ across these claims (trainees in a lab, tutoring-system users, fifth graders, students in 1970s algebra classes, digests reporting other studies), so do not rank them by effect label. None measures progress or boredom for gifted students under acceleration or enrichment.

The evidence by question

Further evidence, not yet read against this model

Read against the model on 2026-10-15; the rest are worked in above. These two bear on the definition of giftedness, not on provision.

Objective and learner-valued goal

The designer's objective is usually continued progress in a subject at the student's level (the next unit's content, a harder standard), or a talent developed towards a performance, measured on a stated task at a stated time. Elicit separately what the student wants: to go faster, to go deeper into one interest, to stay with friends, not to be singled out, not to be given more work for finishing early. Agreement and divergence are both observations. A student who values being with friends may refuse a pull-out group or a grade-skip that serves the objective well; one who wants to pursue an interest may work hard on an enrichment project and little on accelerated content in the same subject.

For example, a 12-year-old who finishes every mathematics unit early may want to build games, while the designer's objective is the next year's algebra. Algebra applied in a game the student designs serves both; an accelerated textbook chapter serves only the objective. Record the student's own goal in their contract in their words, and check progress on it as well as on the objective.

What would revise this model?

The expectation should weaken if comparisons with students who already meet a unit's criterion show that compacting and replacement work produce no more progress on later units or on a delayed check than staying with grade-level practice, or that the gain shows only on the extension work itself. If enrichment that is harder rather than more does no better than more work at the same level, the distinction this page leans on is not real. If the boredom and underachievement the earlier page describes do not fall when the work's level changes, they are not signals of mismatch and the diagnostic advice is wrong. If opening replacement work to any student who shows the response does not change who takes it up, the identification rows matter less than the label suggests.

Progress on the next unit, progress on enrichment work, retention over time, engagement and social adjustment are separate claims. The present evidence establishes no pre-check criterion, no amount of time to free and no rule for choosing acceleration over enrichment.

Examples

Key Sources

  • Lally, M., & Valentine-French, S. (2015). Lifespan development: A psychological perspective.
  • Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at mid-life: Thirty-five years' follow-up of the superior child (Genetic Studies of Genius, Vol. 5). Stanford University Press.
  • Seagoe, M. V. (1975). Terman and the gifted. William Kaufmann.
  • Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 316-345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
  • Steiner, H. H., & Carr, M. (2003). Cognitive development in gifted children: Toward a more precise understanding of emerging differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 15(3), 215-246. doi:10.1023/a:1024636317011
  • Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Pearson.
  • Friend, M. (2008). Special education: Contemporary perspectives for school professionals (2nd ed.). Pearson.
  • Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (2003). New directions in enrichment and acceleration. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 163-173). Allyn & Bacon.
  • Colangelo, N., & Assouline, S. (2009). Acceleration: Meeting the academic and social needs of students. In T. Balchin, B. Hymer, & D. Matthews (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to gifted education (pp. 194-202). Routledge. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2_55
  • Arduini-Van Hoose, N. (2020). Intelligence. In Educational psychology. Retrieved from https://edpsych.pressbooks.sunycreate.cloud. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
  • Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R. W. (2005). Giftedness viewed from the expert-performance perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(3/4). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ746057
  • Gifted and talented students at risk for underachievement. (2008). Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement Issue Brief. https://www.centerforcsri.org
Page metadata
Field Value
type principle
id supporting-gifted-and-talented-students
aliases perceived-giftedness-confers-training-resources, continuum-of-gifted-services
title Supporting Gifted and Talented Students
description For a student whose work on a unit shows the target already done, replacing the practice they do not need with acceleration or harder enrichment, chosen from that response rather than the label, is expected to sustain progress and engagement; no claim tests this, so the page gives a labelled default design.
status review
canonical True
generated by claude/unspecified on 2026-10-15
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 2 — ericsson-2005, gifted-and-talented-students-at-risk-for-underachievement-2008

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.