Matthews, D. J., & Steinhauer, N. (1998). Giftedness, girls, others, and equity: Theory-based practical strategies for the regular classroom. Exceptionality Education Canada, 8 , (2), 41-56.
Giftedness, girls, others, and equity:
Theory-based practical strategies for the regular classroom
Dona J. Matthews & Nancy Steinhauer
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto
The authors can be reached c/o Dona Matthews at the Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St. West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1V6; e-mail dmatthews@oise.utoronto.ca
Abstract
Emerging from a concern about the developmental paths of gifted girls, the authors consider the relevant literature and propose a number of programming approaches that can be implemented in regular classrooms. Examples of practical applications are included from grades 4 to 6. While suitable for all members of a regular classroom, the suggested strategies are designed to encourage diverse kinds of students - including girls and others who are less likely to develop their high level intellectual abilities - to stay or become engaged with learning. Principles that are emphasized include providing as wide a range of programming options as possible; considering abilities across many domains; and encouraging authentic learning experiences. Specific strategies discussed are enrichment and acceleration by subject area; project based learning; career exploration; and mentorships.
Contrary to popularly held beliefs, girls continue to be disadvantaged relative to their male peers in the development of their gifted level abilities (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation [AAUWEF], 1998). In a comprehensive review of studies across many cultures, it was concluded that boys tend to be significantly more self-confident and better adjusted than girls, demonstrating better self-control, less vulnerability, more pride, and a higher subjective sense of well-being (Petersen, Silbereisen, & Sörensen, 1996). At early adolescence, girls show evidence of lower self-esteem than boys across all domains (Bolognini, Plancherel, Bettschart, & Halfon, 1996). As might be expected, these early developmental sex differences have long term implications: a major longitudinal research program that followed high school valedictorians well into adulthood catalogued a steady lowering of women's aspirations and goals, accompanied by a drop in their self-esteem, a decline that was not experienced by their male counterparts (Arnold, 1995).
Rather than the situation improving for intellectually capable girls, then, it may be that it is actually worsening. Developmental supports for children generally have weakened dramatically in an era of rampant divorce and geographical mobility, while the stressors through adolescence have intensified (Keating, 1996, in press), including an increasing sexualization and objectification of females in the media (Pipher, 1994). Girls are experiencing more pressure than ever to relinquish connection with their authentic selves, a condition which is most pronounced for those girls who had previously shown the highest levels of intellectual ability and curiosity (Gilligan, Lyons, & Hanmer, 1990).
One might expect this situation to be addressed and perhaps remedied in our schools. But there are many indicators suggesting otherwise. In the province of Ontario, for example, girls are less likely than boys to participate in gifted programs across all grade levels and program types (Matthews & Smyth, 1997). The nature of teachers' interactions with girls often works to undermine girls' sense of intellectual achievement (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Teachers tend to demand less from them, accepting vaguer responses from them, while providing boys with more intellectually challenging questions (Wellesley College Center for Research on Women [WCCRW], 1992). Even when teachers consciously work to counter gender bias, they often continue to behave in ways that preferentially benefit their male students (AAUWEF, 1989; Orenstein, 1994). Despite widespread equity policies, despite nominal equality of opportunity, and despite the best of intentions, it may be that educators (like the rest of society) are continuing to teach girls that the most demanding and lucrative career opportunities are more appropriate to males.
For several years, many observers have noted that racial and cultural minority group members experience a cultural/educational/professional dynamic similar to that experienced by girls. For example, describing both females and members of minority groups, Farmer (1987) noted a status decline somewhere between high school and adult employment. When children and adolescents feel pulled between allegiances to their family or cultural traditions on the one hand, and individual achievement on the other, identity conflicts almost inevitably undermine their chances and likelihood for success (VanTassel-Baska, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Kulieke, 1994). In fact, school is typically perceived as irrelevant by many students from minority backgrounds, decreasing their motivation and interest in education, and thus substantially reducing the likelihood of gifted levels of career achievement (Ford, Grantham, & Harris, 1996).
The fact that individuals from certain subgroups are not fully developing their gifted level abilities can be understood as an equity issue. And, while this problem is of serious concern from a social justice perspective, it has further and broader repercussions than this. At a time of rapidly accelerating and unpredictable global change, when there is widespread disequilibrium and transition across sectors and societies, it has been argued that the more broadly, richly, and diversely competent the members of a society, the better that society will be able to respond to unpredictably and rapidly changing global demands (Keating, 1996; Keating & Hertzman, in press). It may be that only be encouraging diverse kinds of learners to develop their competence across a number of untraditional areas that we will have the human capital necessary to thrive in a changing world.
One approach to meeting these concerns both for equity and for developing diverse abilities across the population is to provide opportunities for all children to develop their gifted level abilities, regardless of their designation as gifted (Keating, 1991; Matthews, 1996b). This obviates the categorical problems (whereby some children receive the "gifted" category designation, thus creating a huge group of de facto "ungifted" learners), and the elitist, racist, sexist bias that tends to pervade gifted selection processes; and neutralizes the fears that many parents and teachers have about the effects of placing children in ability-segregated classes.
When we have expressed this position to educators, we have frequently encountered the reasonable response is that it is idealistically or theoretically appealing, but practically impossible; that it is far too costly in both money and time for schools to do anything other than pay lip service; and that it works against meeting the very needs it purports to address - those of diversely gifted learners - by virtue of appearing to provide gifted programming, while not doing so consistently or reliably. We discuss here the ways that various teachers at the senior elementary school level have responded to the argument, and provide some practical examples of implementation strategies that have been used with students in grades 4 to 6.
Strategies for Encouraging Gifted-Level Outcomes in Diverse Learners
The first general principle of meeting exceptional learners' needs is that the wider the range of educational programming options available, the more likely an appropriate educational match is to be made for a particular student (Andrews & Lupart, 1996; Bennett, Rolheiser, & Stevahn, 1991; Gardner, 1991). A second general principle in encouraging diverse kinds of gifted abilities is to understand ability as developing differentially across domains, as suggested, for example, by Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1983, 1995, 1998; Matthews, 1997; Matthews & Keating, 1995). A third (and related) general principle that applies to the suggested strategies included here is that authentic learning experiences are particularly relevant for marginal and disaffected learners: when people feel that what they are learning matters in some real-world way, they are far likelier to be motivated to master and apply complex concepts (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Gardner, 1991; Keating, 1991, 1996; Matthews, 1998).
From a perusal of the giftedness literature (e.g., Feldhusen, 1992; Keating, 1991; Lupart & McKeough, 1991; Matthews, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998; Renzulli, 1986; Robinson & Robinson, 1982; Shore, 1991; Smyth & Matthews, 1994; VanTassel-Baska, 1995; Wright & Borland, 1993), some low-cost programming options to consider are discussed here. It might be noted that, while delineated as separate options, these strategies interconnect in many ways: an implementation of one of these options almost always incorporates important aspects of one or more of the others.
1. Enrichment, by subject area , whereby students with high level learning needs in a given domain (e.g., those who are mathematically gifted) are offered learning experiences in that domain that take them more broadly or deeply into an investigation of the subject area. Optimally, this incorporates school-wide and system-wide expertise and resource access, using all available school-based resources (teachers, classes, materials, students) at all levels (pre-school through university) for meeting individual students' diverse domain specific needs.
2. Acceleration, by subject area , whereby students with higher instructional levels are placed in levels appropriate to their mastery, in the appropriate subject area(s). This should involve planned fast-pacing and curriculum compacting strategies. More radical approaches (suitable for a smaller number of learners, carefully selected and monitored) include early admission to kindergarten and full-grade acceleration, whereby generally advanced students are placed in higher grade level classrooms, levels that are better matched to their mastery levels than the standard age-typical assignment.
3. Project based learning , whereby students are assisted in developing meaningful projects on which they can be helped to work in some depth over time. This can be conducted as guided independent study, allowing students to explore their interests somewhat independently of normal classroom constraints, while making sure that sufficient and appropriate guidance is provided.
4. Career exploration , such that students with diversely exceptional abilities are helped to consider a wide range of appropriate and unconventional career possibilities. This can take many forms, both in the classroom and outside of it, and might include finding special activities, such as camps, clubs, contests, and fairs, at local, regional, national, and international levels.
5. Mentorships and apprenticeships , whereby students are helped to find people in the educational or broader community who are (or have been) actively engaged in working productively on areas of students' interest, and are willing and psychologically able to work with students to help them develop their abilities in these areas.
Enrichment, by Subject Area
A widely-used model of enrichment is the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli, 1986), which incorporates three levels of increasing intellectual intensity. Type I enrichment involves general exploratory experiences, such as guest speakers, field trips, and interest centers; Type II enrichment involves group training activities which encourage creative thinking, problem solving, critical thinking, and affective processes, and other learning, research, and communication skill development; and Type III enrichment involves individual and small group investigations of real problems.
Renzulli's emphasis on group work makes this methodology particularly appropriate for girls. Since connectedness is known to be of real concern to many girls (AAUWEF, 1998; Gilligan, 1982; Matthews & Keating, 1995), one way to promote high achievement in girls is to create an environment where learning includes cooperative aspects, rather than being solely competitive. When achieving furthers the goals of the group and not just those of the individual, more girls feel comfortable working hard toward high achievement. Furthermore, by using the inclusive approach to gifted programming suggested in this article, teachers avoid singling out gifted girls. Teachers should offer the types of programs suggested here to the entire class, not only because all students will benefit, but also because doing so will allow the gifted girls in the class to participate along with everybody else, and not in isolation from their age peers.
Another way that this approach is readily adapted to meeting the needs of girls and diversely gifted others is in the possibilities it provides for investigations of the broader curriculum. For example, women's presence in history continues to be skirted by the regular school curriculum (AAUWEF, 1998; Sadker, Sadker, & Donald, 1989). This system offers a well-designed opportunity for students to inquire about eminent women and women's issues.
A practical implementation example can be taken from a regular grade 5 class that was studying inventions. The unit included several Type I enrichment activities: both male and female inventors were invited to speak to the class; the class visited the local Science Center's exhibition on inventions; and the teacher set up a take-apart table where interested students could deconstruct common household appliances. It also included Type II activities: students were assigned group problem-solving tasks, such as constructing a desk alarm from found materials. Students engaged in critical thinking exercises, such as brainstorming in small groups the advantages and disadvantages of existing inventions; they were taught research skills, such as taking notes on a variety of inventions, including examples created by and aimed specifically at women. Finally, all students became engaged in investigations of problems encountered by people they knew, and designed and constructed prototypes of inventions to solve this problem. Their inventions were subsequently marketed and "sold" at a mock invention convention.
Although this unit used gifted enrichment techniques to provide a stimulating learning experience for all students in the classroom, and was experienced overall as a highly positive set of learning activities, it worked particularly well to address many of the often unmet learning needs of gifted girls. The teacher made sure that the explicit curriculum included exposure to both women and men in the fields under investigation. Every student proudly designed and promoted a product that solved a real problem, and in the process was introduced to both female and male models of success. In this way, all girls (and others) in the class were encouraged to think about what they might enjoy pursuing or learning more about, either vocationally or avocationally. Students participated in challenging, personally-meaningful learning activities that helped them to develop their abilities and interests, which is optimally what gifted - and all - education is designed to do.
Acceleration, by Subject Area
Acceleration involves helping a student move through the prescribed curriculum at a faster pace than is normally expected (Shore, 1991). While it is controversial, it has been shown to be an important programming option for educators to consider (Cohn, 1988; Feldhusen, 1992; Shore, 1991; Stanley & Benbow, 1986). Although teachers are less likely to recommend girls for acceleration programs than boys (Jacobs & Weisz, 1992), it has been argued that acceleration is a good way of helping gifted girls reach their potential (Kerr, 1985; Jacobs & Wiesz, 1992), and that it may be especially important for girls who are highly able in the domains of math and science (Silverman, 1991).
Dynamic ongoing classroom-based assessment allows for acceleration by means of curriculum compacting, or eliminating work that has already been mastered, and then streamlining the teaching of unfamiliar skills (Cohn, 1988; Cox, Kelly, & Brinson, 1988; Keating, 1991; Lupart & McKeough, 1991; Renzulli, 1986; Stanley & Benbow, 1986; VanTassel-Baska, 1995). Once a teacher is aware of a student's current level of achievement, she can create a program that will target individual needs, rather than expecting all students in the class to learn (or relearn) the same material at the same time. In other words, the teacher can accelerate curriculum delivery appropriately to meet gifted educational needs.
For example, a grade 4 teacher had observed a wide range of ability in his class, especially in the area of mathematics. About to teach a unit on the addition and subtraction of 3 digit numbers, he began with a pretest of the skills he was planning to teach. He tallied the results, breaking the test into subskills. Once he knew which students had already well-mastered the intended skills, he arranged for those students to work on a more difficult topic for the week, namely, the addition and subtraction of decimal numbers. The rest of the class studied the material at the regular pace, and the teacher met with the accelerating students each day to check on their progress. One result was that the accelerated students sustained their interest in the mathematics program. Furthermore, several girls were identified as needing acceleration even though their behaviour had in no way suggested boredom with the regular curriculum, or advanced mastery. These girls later reported to the teacher that they had been thrilled to have been chosen to work ahead; they had done so responsibly and successfully.
This kind of subject- and content-specific accelerated teaching addresses the needs of individual students in a way that allows for short-term, flexible planning, so that the constitution of the accelerating group can change depending on the skills in question. This system can be time-consuming, and is unwieldy at times. It is most suitable in a classroom where the teacher is receiving support from a gifted education consultant, a team teacher, or volunteer mentors, such as parents. Adequate time is needed to assess, plan, and facilitate varied levels of learning in the classroom.
Project Based Learning
Project based learning engages students in investigating authentic problems (Blumenfeld, Soloway, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial, & Palinscar, 1991; Gardner, 1991; Kornhaber, Krechevsky, & Gardner, 1990; Wright & Borland, 1993). Blumenfeld et al (1991) suggested that the value of and interest in such learning is enhanced when tasks are varied; the problem is authentic; the problem is challenging; there is closure; there is choice; and there are opportunities to work with others.
Authenticity is a key concept that enables the integration of socioemotional needs into classroom learning: motivation to learn is greatly enhanced by a feeling that one's activities have a real-world relevance (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Gardner, 1991; Keating, 1991, 1996; Matthews, 1998). Project based learning begins with a real-world problem or question of interest to the child. This interest is used to motivate the child to learn the skills she needs to arrive at an understanding of the issues. Some of these skills might include predicting, designing experiments, data management, drawing conclusions, communicating, and researching. The child then creates artifacts or products that address the initial question or problem.
An example of project based learning is a grade 5 world geography project, wherein students collaboratively chose a country of interest to study, and then proceeded to create a list of questions they wanted to explore. Using a number of resources, including books and diverse non-text resources (including visual, electronic, and human), they found answers to their questions, as well as more questions to explore. They classified their information into different categories and created a model of a four room museum. Each room contained organized artifacts and written information about topics from their research. Finally, each student produced a tape with a guided tour of the (classroom) museum for visitors.
Because all students were involved in interest motivated data management, researching, drawing conclusions, and communicating these conclusions in a final product, the gifted students in the classroom had opportunities to learn a number of skills at levels commensurate with their ability, levels not typically met without special gifted accommodations. In addition (as with the acceleration example described above), students who had previously shown no sign of gifted level ability achieved exceptionally high learning outcomes, and became connected with the pleasures that can be gained from an engagement in intellectual mastery, an experience that can later lead to gifted levels of achievement.
As with the Enrichment example described above, the possibility of collaboration makes this a particularly attractive option for girls, since many girls respond well when given productive, well-designed opportunities to work collaboratively (AAUWEF, 1998; WCCRW, 1992). Its natural incorporation of many scientific methods and concepts (involving a methodical consideration of the activity's purpose, hypotheses, methods, observations, conclusions, and implications) also makes this an excellent approach to teaching science in a meaningful and engaging manner to diverse kinds of learners.
Career Exploration
It is important not to devalue the careers that women do go into by placing exaggerated value on the careers that are traditionally dominated by men. However, because mathematics and sciences act as filters for many high income occupations, it is disturbing from a financial equity perspective that girls, even those who have shown evidence of mathematical giftedness, choose mathematics and science careers in disproportionately low numbers (WCCRW, 1992). For example, in a study of Rhode Island seniors, 64% of the males who took physics or calculus went on to study science or engineering, while only 18.6% of the similarly eligible females did so. Wage differentials continue to be substantial, and these differentials are considerably less for women who earn mathematics credits in college (WCCRW, 1992).
Many observers have noted that career education is an important component of gifted programs, and especially so for girls (Jacobs & Wiesz, 1992; Matthews, 1998; Matthews & Smyth, 1997; Shore, 1991; WCCRW, 1992). All girls need to be exposed to the many different careers that are open to them, meeting and talking where this is possible to diversely professional people (some of whom are women) with a variety of lifestyles. Opportunities to consider systematically and with guidance the problems and conflicts involved in combining careers with family responsibilities can help girls to make informed academic and career decisions for themselves. They should learn about the schooling requirements and salaries of non-traditional careers, and be helped to consider gender-related issues that influence career achievement, including good (and bad) reasons for women to avoid traditionally masculine career areas. It is encouraging to note that "a number of studies have shown that supportive teachers and well-designed intervention programs have positive effects on the educational and career plans of gifted girls" (Jacobs & Weisz, 1992, p.154).
One method that has been used is to invite women who work in different fields to come to the grade 6 class to speak to students about their work. Mothers, as well as friends, neighbours, aunts, and grandmothers, have enjoyed opportunities to interact with children in this way, and to explore with them some of the issues in making good career and life decisions. Some considerations for educators interested in developing this concept include making sure that there is a range of representative possibilities explored, including both traditional and unconventional occupations; that the speakers are asked to discuss how they became interested in what they ended up doing in their lives, and what kinds of paths they followed to make it happen; and that the children are helped to see ways that career interests can be both supported and damaged by choices and factors along the way.
Two other methods for facilitating career exploration are job shadowing, and asking students to conduct interviews with practitioners, on which they later report to the class. These activities can make excellent topics for language and other subject area assignments, and can be used to stimulate meaningful classroom discourse that benefits all students, in addition to supporting gifted girls in thinking about a wider range of possible futures than they might otherwise have done.
Further activities that can help diversely gifted learners consider alternate career paths include extracurricular camps, clubs, contests, and fairs, at local, regional, national, and international levels that enable them to engage intensely for a short period of time with areas of possible future interest. For example, Talent Identification Program/Canada is a collaboration between the University of Toronto Schools and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto; we are providing summer and weekend courses for adolescents to explore a variety of interests, including various applications of medicine, creative writing, architecture, engineering, and computers, among many others. This can be valuable for all children, but is particularly useful as a way of expanding the range of explorations of personal interest in nontraditional fields.
Mentors
One of the best ways of providing students with gifted level challenges, while enabling them to stay in regular classrooms, is through mentorships. Mentors of both sexes can be helpful, but female mentors, whether teachers, parents, older students, or community members, do double duty by challenging gender stereotypes and serving as gender-role models. While "mentor" has come to have a variety of meanings, in the context of gifted education it is usually used to refer to adults or older students who work with individuals or small groups of students in a domain of expertise (Leroux, 1992; Lupkowski, Assouline, & Vestal, 1992; Pleiss & Feldhusen, 1995; VanTassel-Baska, 1995; Wright & Borland, 1992). A graduate student in mathematics, for example, might volunteer as a "mentor" for an hour or two a week to work with one or more students who are advanced mathematically. Using mentors is an excellent way to individualize programming, offering an opportunity for the mentor and the student to design a program together that targets the student's needs and interests more precisely than a classroom teacher can hope to do, given the normal constraints of the classroom (Leroux, 1992; Lupkowski et al .,1992).
Mentorship programs vary in the forms they take. They can resemble job-shadowing programs, where students prepare for the mentorship phase in school classes and then spend a certain number of hours in the career setting of their mentors (Atkinson, Hansen, & Passman, 1992). Alternatively, mentorship programs can consist of visits to the school from community experts who increase the depth of the programming that classroom teachers are able to provide.
Teachers can send letters home to all parents asking for self and other nominations for possible mentorships, or ask interested parents to organize mentorship drives for diversely interested learners who want opportunities to explore interests in some depth with knowledgeable people. In the authors' experience, such drives have turned up retired musicians, chefs, and history professors; and working artists, artisans, and architects; each of whom was keenly interested in helping children to explore and develop their interests and abilities. There is an important time/energy caveat here: organizing, maintaining, and monitoring mentorships can be time consuming and must be carefully and responsibly done. Teachers who want to support mentorship activities must think about the form they want these experiences to take, and what their own roles will be, in the context of their other responsibilities. Our experience suggests that mentorships work best when the major responsibility for them is assumed by a school's special education or administrative support staff, working in collaboration with teachers, parents, students, and mentors.
For girls at the upper elementary level, bringing women mathematicians and scientists into the classroom as possible mentors is an excellent approach to enriching and accelerating students' education, and providing authentic connections to important domains of competence. If women are unavailable as mentors, girls can still benefit from interactions with male mentors, although this should be supplemented by discussions of gender issues (Pleiss & Feldhusen, 1995). For older (senior high school) students, many universities have begun mentorship programs as part of their recruitment departments.
Conclusions
Emerging from a concern with gender and other equity issues, and based on a reading of theoretical and empirical work in the areas of special education, gifted education, learning theory, developmental psychology, and cognitive psychology, we have recommended some programming approaches designed to encourage gifted level outcomes in diverse kinds of learners. We have provided brief descriptions of some implementation examples, taken from our work with students in grades 4 to 6. Our observations have been that, where regular classroom teachers have an attitude of wanting to support giftedness in diverse learners, these strategies can be highly effective in providing meaningful and challenging learning experiences for a wide range of abilities and learning styles. General principles that integrate the various suggested strategies include providing as wide a range of learning experiences as possible; valuing and supporting development across multiple domains of ability; and connecting real world concerns into classroom learning, in order to enhance diverse learners' engagement with the learning process.
All of the suggested programming approaches can be used in the regular classroom to support gifted level achievement in diverse kinds of learners, including girls and students from minority cultures. By providing meaningful enrichment experiences, especially in mathematics and science, we can expose them to a wider range of possible interests. By accelerating programs where appropriate, we can help them to retain or discover their intellectual interests, and to develop stronger self-confidence. By encouraging them to explore personally-relevant questions, we can enhance their motivation to learn. By discussing employment inequities, problems, and possibilities, we can help them develop decision-making skills, and support them in making wise choices for themselves. By exposing them to female and culturally diverse role models, we can encourage more widespread identification with gifted level achievement, and an understanding that achievement has no built-in boundaries or barriers. By bringing mentors into the school, or sending students out to work with them, we can provide students with expertise that we do not have ourselves, and broaden their sense of possibility. All children, across cultures, sexes, and social classes, can benefit from an incorporation of the educational approaches suggested here. The benefits for individual students who connect with their special interests and abilities are at least matched by the benefits to society when diverse kinds of learners develop diverse kinds of expertise.
References
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (AAUWEF) (1998). Separated by Sex . Washington DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.
Andrews, J., & Lupart, J. (1996). The inclusive classroom: Educating exceptional children . Scarborough, ON: Nelson Canada.
Arnold, K. D. (1995). Lives of promise: What becomes of high school valedictorians . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Atkinson, C., Hansen, D., and Passman, B. (1992). The Mentorship Academy Program: A school-community partnership for developing talent. Gifted Child Today, 15 , 18-22.
Bennett, B., Rolheiser, C., & Stevahn, L. (1991). Cooperative learning: Where heart meets mind . Toronto: Educational Connections.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise . Chicago: Open Court.
Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M., and Palincsar, A. (1991) Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369-398.
Bolognini, M, Plancherel, B., Bettschart, W., & Halfon, O. (1996). Self-esteem and mental health in early adolescence: Development and gender differences. Journal of Adolescence, 19 , 233-245.
Cohn, S.J. (1988). Assessing the gifted child and adolescent. In C.J. Kestenbaum & D.T. Williams (Eds.), Handbook of clinical assessment of children and adolescents (pp.355-376). New York: New York University Press.
Cox, J.R., Kelly, J., & Brinson, P. (1988). The pyramid project: Implementing the Richardson Study recommendations. Roeper Review, 11, 37-43.
Farmer, H. S. (1987). A multivariate model for explaining gender differences in career and achievement motivation. Educational Researcher, 16 (2), 5-9.
Feldhusen, J.F. (1992). Early admission and grade advancement for young gifted learners. GCT , March/April, 45-49.
Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Harris, J. J. (1996). Multicultural gifted education: A wakeup call to the profession. Roeper Review, 19 , 72-78.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind . New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach . New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (3), 200-209.
Gardner, H. (1998). A multiplicity of intelligences. Scientific American, 9, 18-23. Gilligan, C. (1982) In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C., Lyons, N.P., and Hanmer, T.J. (Eds.). (1990). Making connections: The relational worlds of adolescent girls at Emma Willard School . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jacobs, J.E. & Weisz, V. (1992). Gender stereotypes: Implications for gifted education. Roeper Review, 16 , 152-155.
Keating, D. P. (1991). Curriculum options for the developmentally advanced. Exceptionality Education Canada, 1 , 53-83.
Keating, D. P. (1996). Habits of mind for a learning society: Educating for human development. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching, and schooling (pp. 461-481). Oxford: Blackwell.
Keating, D. P. (in press). The learning society: A human development agenda. In D. P. Keating & C. Hertzman, Developmental health: The wealth of nations in the information age . New York: Guilford.
Keating, D. P., & Hertzman, C. (in press). Developmental health: The wealth of nations in the information age . New York: Guilford.
Kerr, B. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women . Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Psychology.
Kornhaber, M., Krechevsky, M., & Gardner, H. (1990). Engaging intelligence. Educational Psychologist, 25, 177-199.
Leroux, J. A. (1992). Stretching the limits of learning: Mentorships for gifted high school students. The Vocational Aspect of Education, 44 , 3, 249-258.
Lupart, J. & McKeough, A. (1991). Toward an integrated model of gifted education. Exceptionality Education Canada, 1, 1, 1-12.
Lupkowski, A.E., Assouline, S.G., & Vestal, J. (1992). Mentors in math. Gifted Child Today . 15 , 26-31.
Matthews, D. J. (1996a). Giftedness at adolescence: Diverse educational options required. Exceptionality Education Canada , 6 (3 & 4), 25-49 .
Matthews, D. J. (1996b). Teaching gifted students in regular classrooms: Adapting instruction to meet high level needs. Caribbean Curriculum, 6 (1), 39-55.
Matthews, D. J. (1997). Diversity in domains of development: Research findings and their implications for gifted identification and programming. Roeper Review, 19 , 172-177 .
Matthews, D. J. (1998). Enhancing learning outcomes for diversely gifted adolescents: Education in the social/emotional domain. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10, 157-168 .
Matthews, D. J., & Keating, D. P. (1995). Domain specifity and habits of mind: An investigation of patterns of high-level development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 319-343 .
Matthews, D. J. & Smyth, E. M. (1997). Encouraging bright girls to keep shining. Orbit , 28 , 34-36 .
Orenstein, P. (1994). Schoolgirls . New York: Anchor Books.
Petersen, A. C., Silbereisen, R. K., & Sörensen, S. (1996). Adolescent development: A global perspective. In K. Hurrelmann & S. F. Hamilton, Eds., Social problems and social contexts in adolescence: Perspectives across boundaries (pp. 3-37). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls . New York: Ballantine.
Pleiss, M.K. & Feldhusen, J.F. (1995). Mentors, role models, and heroes in the lives of gifted children. Educational Psychologist, 30 , 159-169.
Renzulli, J.S. (Ed.) (1986). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Robinson, N. M. & Robinson, H. B. (1982). The Optimal Match: Devising the best compromise for the highly gifted student. In D. Feldman (Ed.), New directions for child development: Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity (pp. 79-94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat girls . New York: Scribner.
Sadker, M., Sadker, D., & Donald, M. (1989) Subtle sexism at school. Contemporary Education. 60 . 204-212.
Shore, B.M. (1991). Building a solid professional knowledge base in gifted education. Exceptionality Education Canada, 1 , 85-102.
Silverman, L.K. (1991). Helping gifted girls reach their potential. Roeper Review, 13, 122-123.
Smyth, E. M., & Matthews, D. J. (1994). Gains and challenges: Reflections on fourteen years of legislated programming for Ontario's gifted students. Exceptionality Education Canada , 4 (2), 33-52 .
Stanley, J.C., & Benbow, C.P. (1986). Youths who reason exceptionally well mathematically. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 361-387). New York: Cambridge University Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1995). The development of talent through curriculum. Roeper Review, 18 , 98-102.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Kulieke, M. (1994). A study of self-concept and social support in advantaged and disadvantaged seventh and eighth grade gifted students. Roeper Review, 16 . 186-191.
Wellesley College Center for Research on Women (WCCRW). (1992). How schools shortchange girls . Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
Wright, L., & Borland, J.H. (1992). A special friend: Adolescent mentors for young, economically disadvantaged, potentially gifted students. Roeper Review, 14, 124-129.
Wright, L., & Borland, J.H. (1993). Using early childhood developmental portfolios in the identification and education of young, economically disadvantaged, potentially gifted students. Roeper Review, 15, 205-210.
