Dr. Renzulli's Enrichment Triad and SEM models are considered even by critics of gifted education to be supportive of broader inclusion of students from diverse backgrounds. Yet such students continue to be underrepresented in programs for the gifted. A sociocultural perspective makes integral the issue of program impact on inclusiveness. Addressing questions regarding access, generalizability, long-range impact, and curriculum implications of Triad and SEM models would bring greater clarity to the field.
References
1.
ArnoldK. D. (1993). Academically talented women in the 1980s: The Illinois Valedictorian Project. In HulbertK. D.SchusterD. T. (Eds.), Women's lives through time: Educated American women of the twentieth century (pp. 393–414. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
BacaL. M.CervantesH. T. (1998). The bilingual special education interface (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
3.
BaumS. M.RenzulliJ. S.HébertT. P. (1995). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224–235.
4.
CallahanC. M.ReisS. M. (1996). Gifted girls, remarkable women. In ArnoldK.NobleK. D.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on talent development (pp. 171–192. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
5.
ColemanE. B.ShoreB. (1991). Problem-solving processes of high and average performers in physics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 366–379.
6.
FernándezA. T.GayL. R.LuckyL. F.GavilánM. R. (1998). Teacher perceptions of gifted Hispanic limited English proficient students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 335–351.
7.
FordD. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education, 32, 4–14.
8.
FordD. Y.ThomasA. (1997). Underachievement among gifted minority students: Problems and promises. ED 409 660.
9.
GaultneyJ. F. (1998). Differences in benefit from strategy use: What's good for me may not be so good for thee. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 160–178.
10.
HébertT. P. (1994). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16, 22–28.
11.
HeiderJ. (1986). The Tao of Leadership. New York: Bantam Books.
12.
HelsonR. (1971). Women mathematicians and the creative personality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 210–220.
13.
KanevskyL. (1990). Pursuing qualitative differences in the flexible use of problem-solving strategy by young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 115–140.
14.
KerckhoffA. C. (1976). The status attainment process: Socialization or allocation? Social Forces, 61, 24–45.
15.
KitanoM. K. (1997). Gifted Asian American women. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 3–37.
16.
KitanoM. K. (1998a). Gifted African American women. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 254–287.
17.
KitanoM. K. (1998b). Gifted Latina women. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 131–159.
18.
MacKinnonD. W. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential. American Psychologist, 20, 273–281.
19.
NobleK. D.SubotnikR. F.ArnoldK. D. (1996). A new model for adult female talent development: A synthesis of perspectives from Remarkable Women. In ArnoldK. D.NobleK. D.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 427–439. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
20.
PattonJ. M.BaytopsJ. L. (1995). Identifying and transforming the potential of young, gifted African Americans: A clarion call for action. In FordB. A.ObiakorF. E.PattonJ. M. (Eds.), Effective education of African American exceptional learners: New perspectives (pp. 27–66. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
21.
PetersonJ. S.MargolinL. (1997). Naming gifted children: An example of unintended “reproduction.” Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 82–100.
22.
OgbuJ. U. (1995a). Cultural problems in minority education: Their interpretations and consequences—Part one: Theoretical background. The Urban Review, 27, 189–205.
23.
OgbuJ. U. (1995b). Cultural problems in minority education: Their interpretations and consequences—Part two: Case studies. The Urban Review, 27, 271–297.
24.
ReisS. M.GentryM.MaxfieldL. R. (1998). The application of enrichment clusters to teachers' classroom practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 310–334.
25.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261.
26.
RenzulliJ. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 3–54.
27.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1994). Research related to the schoolwide enrichment triad model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 7–20.
28.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: New directions for developing high-end learning. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 136–154). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
29.
RoeA. (1952). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.
30.
RogersK. B. (1986). Do the gifted think and learn differently? A review of recent research and its implications for instruction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 17–39.
31.
RogoffB.ChavajayP. (1995). What's become of research on the cultural basis of cognitive development? American Psychologist, 50, 859–877.
32.
ShevinSapon M. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany: State University of New York Press.
33.
ShevinSapon M. (1996). Beyond gifted education: Building a shared agenda for school reform. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 194–214.
34.
SternbergR. J.WagnerR. K.WilliamsW. M.HorvathJ. A. (1995). Testing common sense. American Psychologist, 50, 912–926.
35.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.JohnsonD. T.HughesC. E.BoyceL. N. (1996). A study of language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 461–480.
36.
WilsonK. R.AllenW. R. (1987). Explaining the educational attainment of young Black adults: Critical familial and extra-familial influences. Journal of Negro Education, 56, 64–76.
