The Young Gifted/Talented Child: Programs at the University of Illinois

A search of the literature from the past 30 years reveals that there is a dearth of research surrounding effective interventions for intellectually gifted children in the early childhood years. The findings of 11 empirical studies of educational provisions for young gifted children were located and the methodological rigor of the studies examined. Aspects problematic to research with young gifted children are discussed, including issues relating to sample sizes, definitions of giftedness, difficulties in conducting experimental studies, finding appropriate standardized measures for use with gifted children, and measurement of program outcomes. Suggestions are made for strengthening future research in the field of early childhood gifted education.

Section: Implications For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Searching for Evidence-Based Practice

Walsh

Kemp

Hodge

et al. 2012

“…Though there have been some programs for children in the preschool and kindergarten age range [e.g. the Astor Program (Ehrlich, 1978), the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana program (Karnes, Schwedel, & Linnemeyer, 1982); the University of Washington program (Roedell, Jackson, & Robinson, 1980l], most programs do not attempt to identify children younger than eight years of age for service. Reasons for deferring identification and service have been economic as well as theoretical.…”

Section: Gifted Education: State-of-the-artmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early Childhood Gifted Education: A Collaborative Perspective

Barbour¹

1992

Young gifted children are presently an underserved population. The concern for meeting the needs of these children is evident in recent funding initiatives. The dilemmas involved in serving young gifted children may best be solved by a collaborative venture between the two parent fields: Early Childhood Education and Gifted Education. The following paper examines the state-of-the-art in each field and identifies points of intersection. By combining the best practices in each, service to this population can be enhanced.

“…She reported only five such programs. 'Itvo years later Kames, Shwedel and Linnemeyer (1982) conducted a similar survey hoping that the field had moved ahead. They identified only 18 programs at the preschool level, an increase which certainly isn?…”

Section: Historical 'Ikendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The conceptual models that guide instruction are an adapted form of the "Open Framework" from the British Infant School (Cazden, 1970) and an adaptation of Guilford's Structure of the Intellect (SOI) (Guilford, 1979); (Kames & Bertschi, 1978;Kames, Shwedel, & Linnemeyer, 1982;Karnes, Shwedel, & Williams, 1983). There are no set curricula.…”

Section: The University Of Illinois Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Preschool/Primary Gifted Child

Karnes

Johnson

1991

Self Cite

overview of historical trends with regard to providing services to young gifted children with particular emphasis on inhibiting factors that have prevented greater services is provided. The work of Karnes and her associates at the University of Illinois with young gifted children from upper and middle class backgrounds is summarized. These two sections provide foundation for the concluding section in whxh we present our interpretation of "What we k n o w for sure," "What we think we know," and "What we do not know" with regard t o providing services to young gifted children.It is encouraging, that during the last 5 years there has been increased interest in programming for the young gifted; however, there are many negative attitudes that must be changed if this interest is going to be nurtured into a movement. The general attitude about the young gifted from middle and upper class homes tends to be, "Why do more for these children; they already have more than most?" or "Why worry about these young children until they reach the third or fourth grades!" For the handicapped with special gifts and talents, the attitude is one of disbelief, as if all handicapped children are mentally handicapped and couldn't possibly have a special gift or talent. Finally, we still encounter bigoted attitudes about