Looking Ahead: Research to Inform Practice in the Education of Gifted and Talented Students in New Zealand

Tracy Riley,  Massey University

In 2003, the New Zealand Ministry of Education commissioned a team of researchers from Massey University to conduct an empirical research study examining the extent, nature and effectiveness of identification and provisions for gifted and talented students (Riley, Bevan-Brown, Bicknell, Carroll-Lind & Kearney, 2004). The study was the first comprehensive, Ministry-funded research of its kind, and developed out of acknowledgement of a somewhat limited research base in New Zealand (Ministry of Education Working Party on Gifted Education, 2001). But it was driven by the need to identify strengths and gaps in provision (Ministry of Education, 2002), so that future directions in gifted and talented education may be informed by both theory and practice relevant to New Zealand.

To best determine the extent, nature and effectiveness of provision for gifted and talented students, and in doing so, ensuring accordance with the Government’s core principles for gifted and talented education (Ministry of Education, 2002), this research comprised three key elements:

• A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE which explained the theory and research informing effective practice in the identification of and provisions for gifted and talented learners from national and international perspectives.
• A SURVEY OF NEW ZEALAND SCHOOLS which determined the extent and nature of planned policy, identification and provisions for gifted and talented students as reported by a representative sample of approximately half of all schools in New Zealand.
• CASE STUDIES of ten schools which provided insight into the enablers and barriers for New Zealand schools in the development and implementation of gifted and talented education.

Among the findings, a key conclusion was a paucity of national studies, particularly investigations of effective methods of identification and a continuum of provisions. Coupled with this finding, it was further concluded that even when research has been undertaken, its dissemination to teachers is limited. If our future initiatives in gifted and talented education are indeed to be based upon theory and research relevant to New Zealand, and ideally contextualised within our country, then these findings have implications for both practitioners and researchers. The purpose in this article is to explore the research-related findings and implications, hopefully raising the questions that New Zealand educators need to be asking and contemplating the avenues we might take to answer these.

REVIEWING THE THEORY AND RESEARCH

The Riley et al. (2004) study was comprised of several research questions designed to determine the extent, nature and effectiveness of New Zealand’s provisions for gifted and talented students. The research question most relevant to an examination of current and future research directions was: What does the literature say about identification methods and provisions that increase achievement and improve social outcomes and meet the cognitive, affective, creative and cultural needs of gifted and talented learners?

In order to answer this question, a comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken. The major themes of the review were concepts of giftedness, identification principles and practices, qualitative differentiation, enrichment and acceleration, regular inclusive classrooms, a continuum of school-based provisions outside the classroom, curriculum models, schoolwide policies and plans, and the evaluation of gifted programmes with cultural issues woven throughout. However, during the course of the research, it was decided that cultural issues should not only be addressed throughout the review, but warranted a separate discussion. Other major themes which arose during the research, and were included in the review, were teacher education and professional development, issues related to research in gifted education, the debate regarding ability grouping, and programme development. A brief section on identification methods and provisions discussed in the international literature, but seldom addressed in New Zealand, was also added.

To effectively manage the review, several broad criteria were developed for the selection and review of materials. The initial criteria were:

• Research-based or theory-based reports (national and international), and descriptive reports of provision (New Zealand-based);
• Relevance to New Zealand’s core principles related to identification and provision (i.e., matched to individual needs; inclusive of gender, socioeconomic differences, and culture; bi-cultural/multicultural; school-based catalysts for talent development; parental/whanau involvement; sound practice and theory/research; differentiated; aimed at meeting social and emotional needs; supported by professional development);
• Currency or timeliness (1992-2002, with recognition that some publications of significance may be of an earlier publication date); and
• Overall relevance to the purposes of the review.

As the review was undertaken, whilst every effort was made to adhere to these criteria, it also became apparent that for adequate coverage of some topics, particularly from a New Zealand perspective, these had to be waived. For example, the decision was made to include unpublished research reports from New Zealand, as well as personal communication with educational providers. In some instances, timeliness also became a factor to be overlooked: some of the international discussion and debate surrounding educational principles and practices in gifted and talented education, as outlined for this review, took place over a decade ago.

Over 560 national and international journal articles, research reports, websites, books and other references were read, analysed, and included in the review. As the research team discovered, there is a vast amount of literature in the field of gifted and talented education and within New Zealand this has grown in recent years. Despite this growth in the New Zealand-based literature on gifted and talented education, the literature review demonstrated a paucity of research, nationally and internationally, which examines the effectiveness of identification or provisions for gifted and talented students in relation to their cognitive, affective, creative, or cultural development. The empirical research related to outcomes, either quantitative or qualitative, is scarce. An analysis of the New Zealand-based references cited in the literature review magnifies the situation, as the following results demonstrate:

• Of the 568 references reviewed, roughly 23% (or 130) of these are New Zealand-based in their authorship and/or publication.
• Of the 130 New Zealand references, the majority (105) focus solely upon issues related to gifted and talented education, with the remainder (25) reporting on important issues peripheral to gifted education.
• These 130 references are written by 54 New Zealand authors, combinations of authors, or institutions.
• The New Zealand-based references span from the early 1980s to 2003, with over half (68) being produced in the last 5 years.
• Included in the New Zealand references are published and unpublished reports on approximately 24 empirical research studies: this accounts for only 4% of the references reviewed.
• The New Zealand theory and research is disseminated across a range of different methods: 23 research reports, documents, and position papers; 16 unpublished research projects and theses; 14 articles on tki’s gifted and talented community; 13 published or unpublished conference papers; 11 national peer-review journal articles; 11 national non-peer review journal articles; 6 book chapters; 6 international peer review journal articles; 5 books (including 18 chapters referenced from McAlpine and Moltzen’s 1996 Gifted and Talented: New Zealand Perspectives); 5 New Zealand websites; and 3 tests or observation scales.

As stated earlier, the paucity of research, and its dissemination to practitioners, is not a problem unique to New Zealand, and before considering this issue and its solutions further, it is important to examine the limitations of research in gifted and talented education. These include the nature of research in gifted education, both in and outside of New Zealand; the variety of definitions of giftedness and methods of identification; the research designs and measures of effectiveness; and interpretations of research.

LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH IN GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION

Despite the fact that approximately one new publication a day is produced within the field of gifted and talented education (Ziegler & Raul, 2000), very few empirical studies of research orientations which are qualitative, quantitative, or a combination of the two, and which examine the effectiveness in relation to student outcomes, seem to exist in the gifted education literature. Callahan (2001) confirms this in stating, “The research in gifted education can be characterized as largely descriptive … The field is sorely lacking in student outcome data” (p. 150). The plethora of available publications is dominated by reviews of the literature, position papers, proposals for future research, descriptive reports, and critiques. These publications tend to address curriculum studies, programme evaluations, delivery systems, and special provisions for gifted and talented students (Cross, 1994). These contributions are indeed substantial and of great value to educators; however, they do not reflect the spectrum of available research approaches and methodologies (Cross, 1994) and as such, have been characterised as ‘folk wisdom,’ ‘quick fix practices,’ and ‘easy-answer approaches’ (Cohen, 1996). Callahan (2001) describes gifted education as a field which relies upon “theory, supposition, and belief about what is best for gifted students” (p. 150). Hays (1993) summed up the gifted education literature as ‘journalism’ or ‘advice giving.’

These descriptive reports are useful, but as Callahan (2001) points out, unless the effectiveness of identification and provisions is evaluated, gifted education will “never make dramatic leaps forward” (p. 150). Not surprisingly, she calls for the evaluation of programmes, describing the documentation of those as ‘minimal.’ However, Delcourt, Loyd, Cornell, and Goldberg (1994) report in regards to research on programme effectiveness, ...although there are many theoretical articles, and articles which describe the curricula or goals of different kinds of gifted programs, there are few studies which have directly examined how students change over time after entering a gifted program. Research on the effects of gifted programs is generally sparse, unsystematic, and far from conclusive (p. 3).

As the previous analysis of the Riley et al. (2004) literature review demonstrates, within New Zealand, this is also the case. It seems the situation has not changed much since 1987 when McAlpine and Reid reported that New Zealand comparative and evaluative research was ‘sparse’ and its dissemination was to a limited audience. Nearly a decade later, Reid (1996) lamented over this situation, stating, “… there have been a handful of articles written about ‘programmes’ for gifted children, but these are long on description, unsupported opinion, and unsubstantiated conclusions on outcomes, and they are woefully short on quantitative and/or qualitative evidence of effectiveness” (p. 378). An examination of the 1997-2001 issues of APEX: The New Zealand Journal for Gifted Education confirms this. Of the twenty-two published articles during that time period, overwhelmingly the majority raise and discuss important issues related to the identification and provisions for gifted and talented students, but none of these report the results of empirical studies of giftedness. It seems the situation McAlpine and Reid described in 1987 remains true today, and educators should heed their call for “much more, and more rigorous, research on the education of the gifted and talented” (p. 330).

The absence of New Zealand-based research becomes problematic as programmes are being developed and implemented. No doubt, much can be gained from overseas research, and to ignore the plethora of research could prove akin to ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater.’ However, at the same time, care and caution must be taken in making generalisations or applying recommendations, ensuring that those are appropriate and relevant within the context and culture of the New Zealand education system. A critical, research-driven analysis of their appropriateness or effectiveness within the cultural, social, and educational climate of New Zealand is needed, but as Riley et al. (2004) report, “for some methods of identification and provisions, there is simply no New Zealand literature reported – descriptive or empirical” (p. ). As the literature review demonstrates, for nearly every identification method and provision there is a New Zealand perspective but seldom is there New Zealand-based empirical evidence to support or refute these.

This problem is exemplified in an examination of research related to the effectiveness of identification or provisions. One of the first considerations should be the researcher’s definition of gifted and talented students. This becomes problematic given the plethora of theoretical concepts, and even more complicated when one attempts to conceptualise giftedness and talent within an individual school setting as advocated by he Ministry of Education (2000, 2002). This is because results obtained under one notion of giftedness, or within one sub-population of ‘the gifted and talented,’ cannot be generalised or compared to results of another study relying upon a different perspective of giftedness. Ziegler and Raul (2000) state “the theory defines the data for which this theory could be relevant” (p. 113) – when applying this to gifted education, who the gifted and talented are no doubt has an influence upon the research methodology and findings.

Furthermore,although the field of gifted education has clearly shifted to a much broader conceptualisation of giftedness and talent, it seems that in many cases the identification methods employed by researchers are measures of intelligence or achievement (Ziegler & Raul, 2000). Identification of this nature may be the most simplistic approach, but it does not accurately measure the multi-dimensional, dynamic nature of giftedness and talent. Nor does it reflect preferred approaches to identification in New Zealand: although many schools report the use of standardised tests, very few schools use IQ testing (Riley et al., 2004). Ziegler and Raul (2000) report that many research studies are reliant upon a single criterion for identification of participants, whereas multiple methods are preferred in New Zealand (Ministry of Education, 2000; Riley et al., 2004). Even when multiple or different measures of identification are utilised, for the reasons outlined above, it still remains difficult to make generalisations or comparisons across studies.

The underlying conceptions of giftedness, alongside the identification methods employed, create what Ziegler and Raul (2000) refer to as a ‘toothbrush concept.’ “It seems that everybody has a toothbrush, but nobody wants to use a toothbrush which belongs to somebody else” (p. 114). They see these issues as problematic in gifted and talented education research, concluding that the research field is “more or less fragmented,” and so, warning that the “results cannot easily be compared to one another” (p. 131). Therefore, caution must be taken in the interpretation, integration, and application of research findings.

Another issue, raised by Slavin (1987, 1991), is concern regarding the inadequacy of research designs employed by researchers in gifted and talented education. He states that most studies related to effectiveness, and specifically of enrichment programmes, compare students who were assigned to gifted programmes to those of similar ability who were rejected from the programmes. Many of these studies control for intelligence quotient and prior achievement, but do not take into consideration other factors such as motivation or current achievement. Goldring (1990) also discusses this concern, stating that “one cannot match on all the relevant variables; therefore, matching is usually implemented on those variables that are easiest to measure” (p. 315). However, as Winner (1996) states, “Only with random assignment can we be sure that gains experienced by the children … are due to the program, and not to pre-existing differences between the two groups of children” (p. 262). As Reid (1996) points out, research of this nature creates ethical dilemmas, and perhaps for that reason, the type of research called for has not been carried out.

Slavin (1988) also discusses the problems related to different approaches to teaching and learning (both content and process orientations) which are employed in gifted programmes and other alternatives, concluding that it is difficult to compare the effects upon students. Allan (1991) claims that the measurements used are possibly too insensitive to measure or pick-up the effects of different approaches. Kulik (1991) discusses the inadequacy of criterion measures used in gifted education research studies, specifically those studies related to ability grouping. In many studies, standardised achievement tests are used to measure academic gains, however, he believes these might not give a true measure of effectiveness. He states that research utilising local tests tends to give way to stronger results, therefore concluding that the effects claimed by many studies may be underestimates. Allan (1991) relays the complaints of many teachers, that too often “tests don’t evaluate what they are teaching” (p. 61).

Fielder, Lange and Winebrenner (2002) also discuss this critical issue, concluding that the goals of gifted programmes are often a mismatch with the measures of effectiveness utilised. As they state, “what gifted students learn should be measured by far more comprehensive criteria than increased achievement test scores” (p. 109). Kulik (2003) comments, in relation to ability grouping, that the reported modest gains in achievement are in fact quite remarkable given that most programmes “…do not ordinarily provide more work on the basic skills … However, the standardised achievement tests used to evaluate the effects of most enrichment programs stress basic skills” (p. 275).

Allan (1991) discusses another reason why studies of effectiveness may give a distorted picture of actual achievement: the ceiling effect, or highest scores attainable for each level. As she states, “The scores of gifted students usually approach the ceiling on standardized achievement tests, making it very difficult to show significant academic improvement on their part” (p. 60). In other words, when gifted and talented students reach the upper limits on measures of achievement, the test itself potentially masks their actual degree of achievement gains. She concludes by warning that with research studies of this nature, the ‘real benefits’ could in fact be greater than the method or measurements might show. Goldring (1990) also warns of test scores regressing toward the mean, especially if two matched groups are drawn from different populations.

Finally, Slavin (1987, 1988, 1991) repeatedly states that there is systematic bias in gifted education research. This bias is seen as moving in one direction – favouring the gifted and talented. Therefore, Goldring (1990) advises researchers to “… investigate the extent to which those studies are biased, rather than merely discount them …” (p. 315). Rogers (2002) describes five approaches to research upon which practitioners commonly make decisions, as they try to “make sense of the overwhelming body of research that is out there” (p. 103). She explains these as follows:

• I know this student who - applying past successful experiences to current situations, or "anecdotal research, at best".
• I found this study - relying upon one or two research studies to support one’s ‘gut feelings.’
• Famous person - applying elements of a researcher’s findings to support a particular practice, which neither adequately nor accurately portray the research.
• Apples and oranges - meta-analytic approaches which report average effect sizes across a range of studies.
• Best-evidence - taking meta-analysis a step further by categorising studies by instructional strategy, selecting the strongest studies for generalisations.

Rogers (2002) strongly supports the latter two approaches as the most appropriate for determining effectiveness; however, she also warns that both of these approaches, meta-analysis and best-evidence synthesis, carry with them inherent dangers in their design. For example, in some cases of meta-analysis little care may be given to the examination of the quality of individual research, sample sizes, or teaching strategies implemented. Syntheses of best-evidence research can be subjective, with the researcher playing the role of ‘judge and jury.’ She advises educators interested in the outcomes for gifted and talented students to carefully examine studies of this nature, ensuring that the criteria are rigorous, and the studies are inclusive of gifted and talented students.

A NEW ZEALAND PERSPECTIVE?

These limitations of the research in gifted and talented education were kept at the forefront of the Riley et al. (2004) review, as the theory and research was analysed and reported. As they state, "It is important ... that this review is read against the backdrop of the potential constraints and limitations of research in gifted and talented education, especially before any generalisations or applications of the findings of this review are made" (p. 7). Although educators are advised to "be quick to demand evidence of effectiveness" (Callahan, 2001, p. 150), and every effort was made by Riley et al. (2004) to source and report research findings related to student outcome data, the review of the literature had to be reliant upon descriptive studies, especially in reporting New Zealand-based theory and research. Finally, the review aims to explain both the empirical and descriptive research, but it does not evaluate those. In other words, an array of identification methods and provisions are presented as common practices, but none as ‘best practices.’ The reporting of descriptive studies and lack of critical judgement could be seen as two of the limitations of the Riley et al. (2004) study.

Additionally, the boundaries of the survey of New Zealand schools and case studies, as reported by Riley et al. (2004), play a role in any future research directions for New Zealand. The limitations of the survey are highlighted as:

• "...the questionnaire results give an indication of the extent of identification, provisions, and policies/procedures, but by the very nature of a close-ended questionnaire the quality of these in practice is indeterminable" (pp. 162 - 63).
• "...there is a potential for bias amongst the responding sample; in other words, schools which are identifying and providing for gifted and talented students might be more likely to respond than those which are not" (p. 162).
• "...questionnaire results are self-reported data – different people interpret the same questions from a variety of perspectives" (p. 163).
• "...from a cultural perspective, a questionnaire is not the most desirable approach to research" (p. 163).
• "...the limitations of survey research in general are relevant" (p. 163).

Some understanding of the extent and nature of New Zealand’s identification and provisions for gifted and talented students is provided by the Riley et al. (2004) research findings; however due these limitations, many of the results provide more questions than answers. For example, the study reports that 82% of New Zealand schools provide classroom-based programmes for gifted and talented students, and amongst these, ability grouping is a common approach. What is yet to be determined is how students are selected for ability groups, the flexibility of these, the curricular areas in which they are employed, and perhaps most importantly, the level of differentiation provided for students in the ‘top’ group. Questions of who, what, why, when, and how remain unanswered.

The case studies provide some insight into how a sample of New Zealand schools identify and provide for their gifted and talented students, but the effectiveness of these approaches remains in question. The constraints of the case study element of the Riley et al. (2004) study demonstrate this:

• "This is not a study of the effectiveness of these provisions, nor of the ten participating schools; rather, it is hoped that the experiences ... will be of benefit and value …” (p. 201).
• "...while every effort has been made to ensure that the analysis was objective and the results presented are valid, the potential limitations of qualitative methodologies apply to this research” (p. 201).

Lastly, as with all investigations, the purposes and questions, methodologies, researchers, timeframe and funding no doubt also influenced the findings of the Riley et al. (2004) research. Although the limitations of the research in gifted and talented education, coupled with those of Riley et al. study (2004), might paint a bleak picture, by contemplating these, many possibilities arise. As the author James Baldwin said, "Know from whence you came. If you know whence you came, there are absolutely no limitations to where you can go."

LOOKING AHEAD

The findings of the Riley et al. (2004) research provide much food for thought. Apart from concluding that there is a paucity of New Zealand-base research, with rather limited dissemination, the researchers also concluded:

• There is a growing awareness of the need to provide gifted and talented students in New Zealand schools with an individualised and appropriate education, but this is impeded by a reported lack of professional development, access to resources and support, funding, time, and cultural misunderstandings.
• Reported definitions of giftedness and talent in New Zealand schools are broad and multi-categorical; however, cultural, spiritual, and emotional giftedness are often overlooked. Additionally, many of the reported definitions, identification practices, and provisions do not embody Maori perspectives and values.
• Multiple approaches to identification of giftedness and talent are reported by New Zealand schools; however, there is heavy reliance upon teacher identification and standardised testing across all areas of ability.
• There is a reported preference in New Zealand schools for implementing a combined approach of enrichment and acceleration, but the implementation of these is rather limited, with partiality to within-class provisions and withdrawal or pull-out programmes.
• Gifted and talented students from under-represented groups, especially Maori students and those of other ethnic minority groups, are not being readily identified in New Zealand schools, and culturally appropriate provisions are not being planned, implemented or evaluated.
• There is awareness and recognition of the social and emotional needs of gifted and talented students; however, only isolated examples of provisions specific to these are reported by New Zealand schools. Additionally, some of the reported identification methods and provisions could have potential negative effects upon the social and emotional well-being of gifted and talented students.
• The reported involvement of parents, caregivers, and whanau in the overall organisation and coordination, identification, and provisions for gifted and talented students in New Zealand schools is minimal.
• Schools in New Zealand are cognisant of the need for ongoing schoolwide professional development for all teachers and consider the lack of these opportunities a barrier to identification and provisions. Resources, funding, time and access are reported as barriers to professional development (Riley et al., 2004, p. 3).

In light of these overall results, future research directions need to address the following:

1. Programmatic evaluation: criteria and approaches
2. Effectiveness of preferred identification methods and provisions in relation to social, cultural, emotional, creative and intellectual outcomes
3. Quality of preferred identification and provisions
4. Potential of internationally research-based approaches to identification and provisions within the New Zealand context
5. Identification and provisions for under-represented groups, especially Maori students and other ethnic minority groups
6. Social and emotional needs of gifted and talented students
7. Overcoming reported barriers: time, funding, professional development, access to resources, and cultural misunderstandings
8. Effectiveness of current Ministry of Education policy and initiatives, including the implementation of the change to National Administration Guidelines, advisory services, and the Talent Development Initiatives

However, research on its own will not impact upon classroom practice. Of concern, is another finding of the Riley et al. (2004) study: “… even when research exists, there is a crevice between the theory and practice” (p. 270). For example, across all areas of giftedness and talent, the predominant school-based provision for gifted and talented students was withdrawal and pull-out programmes. Yet, the literature review indicated limited recent, New Zealand-based research related to the effectiveness of this practice. Conversely, although the reported theory and research strongly support accelerative practices such as early entry and special classes, less than 10% of New Zealand schools reporting school-based provisions utilised these approaches. It is doubtful that educators would intentionally ignore sound theory and research in gifted and talented education. It is more likely that the barriers such as lack of time, funding, resources and support, and professional development are the reasons for this lack of awareness and utilisation of sound theory and research.

To remedy this situation, it is critical that New Zealand educators, both researchers and practitioners, work together with the aim of ‘bridging the gap’ between theory and practice. This can begin in schools through the provision of schoolwide research-based professional development and reading – and this requires a commitment of time and resources. As one principal in a case study reported, “There needs to be time for staff to reflect about the theory and practice of special abilities” (Riley et al., 2004, p. 263). From this, there should develop an expectation for evidence-based teaching. Evidence of effectiveness should be gathered as part of programmatic and on-going evaluation, and this should be planned in the initial stages of developing programmes for gifted and talented students.

As a gifted and talented education community, one aim should be the creation of a stronger culture of inquiry – with an expectation of ongoing debate and discussion. To achieve this, teaching should be valued as a research-led culture and research as a teaching-led culture. This can be accomplished through the encouragement and development of research-active teachers and teaching-active researchers, as well as partnerships between researchers and teachers and mentoring of ‘new’ researchers. In setting research priorities and using collaborative approaches, the wide dissemination of New Zealand-based research is critical and consideration will need to be given to the greater use of current ‘tools’ for information-sharing and the creation of new ones.

Research can be most simply defined as scholarly investigation or inquiry. Research involves analysis, study, experimentation, exploration, investigation, fact-finding, scrutiny. Applied to gifted and talented education, research can begin to answer many educators’ questions, for it is clear that as a field all the answers have yet to be revealed. As Albert Einstein once pondered, “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” As gifted and talented education looks ahead, it is important that questions be asked in search of answers – only then will the education of gifted and talented students reflect good practice based upon sound theory and research.

REFERENCES
Allan, S.D. (1991). Ability-grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping and the gifted? Educational Leadership, March, 60-65.
Callahan, C.M. (2001). Fourth down and inches. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(3), 148-157.
Cohen, L.M. (1996). Mapping domains of ignorance and knowledge in gifted education. Roeper Review, 18(3), 183-190.
Cross, T. (1994). Alternative inquiry and its potential contributions to gifted education: A commentary. Roeper Review, 16(4), 284-186.
Delcourt, M.A.B., Loyd, B.H., Cornell, D.G., & Goldberg, M.D. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes. Virginia: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Fiedler, E.D., Lange, R.E., & Winebrenner, S. (2002). In search of reality: Unraveling myths about tracking, ability grouping, and the gifted. Roeper Review, 24(3), 108-112.
Goldring, E. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom organizational frameworks for gifted students. Journal of Educational Research, 83(6), 313-326.
Kulik, J. (1991). Findings on grouping are often distorted. Response to Allan. Educational Leadership, March, 67.
Kulik, J.A. (2003). Grouping and tracking. In N.Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd Ed.) (pp. 268-281). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
McAlpine, D., & Reid, N. (1987). The gifted and talented. In D.R. Mitchell & N.N. Singh (Eds.), Exceptional children in New Zealand (pp. 318-332). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Ministry of Education. (2000). Gifted and talented students: Meeting their needs in New Zealand schools. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education Working Party on Gifted Education. (2001). Report to the Minister of Education. Retrieved April 29, 2002 from http://www.executive.govt.nz/minister/mallard/gifted_education/index.html
Ministry of Education. (2002). Initiatives in gifted and talented education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Reid, N. (1996). Evaluation of programmes. In D. McAlpine, & R. Moltzen (Eds.), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (pp. 377-390). Palmerston North: ERDC Press.
Riley, T., Bevan-Brown, J., Bicknell, B., Carroll-Lind, J., & Kearney, A. (2004). The extent, nature and effectiveness of planned approaches in New Zealand schools for identifying and providing for gifted and talented students. Retrieved March 15, 2004 from www.minedu.govt.nz/goto/gifted.
Rogers, K.B. (2002). Grouping the gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 24(3), 103-108.
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. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and secondary schools. Educational Leadership, September, 67-77.
Slavin, R. (1991). Are cooperative learning and "untracking" harmful to the gifted. Response to Allan. Educational Leadership, March, 68-71.
Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books.
Zeigler, A., & Raul, T. (2000). Myth and reality: A review of empirical research studies on giftedness. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 113-136.