Pioneering Definitions and Theoretical Positions in the Field of Gifted Education

h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s Jennifer L. Jolly, Ph.D.

The previous Historical Pe r s p e c t i v es column California Teachers’ Association, published an arti- focused on the foundations of gifted education and cle written by Stedman detailing her work at the the influence that Francis Galton, Alfred Binet, and Southern Branch of the University of California Cesare Lombroso had in shaping the field. This (now UCLA). This article was the prelude to a work seeks to extend the examination of the histor- more comprehensive and detailed account of the ical roots of gifted education by focusing on defin- opportunity room and a sample of its students in itions and theoretical underpinnings of giftedness her book Education of the Gifted (1924). from the viewpoints of four pioneering researchers Stedman noted that the children included in the and practitioners during the early 20th century— opportunity room were of “great capacity.” Thus, the foundational period of gifted education. the practice of special education for gifted children The four individuals addressed in this column only helped to fulfill their unique potential. The a re Lulu Stedman, Leta Ho l l i n g w o rth, Lew i s underlying principle of individual differences also TTerman, and Guy M. Whipple. Hollingworth and guided educational practices to develop students’ Terman are figures synonymous with gifted educa- individual differences to their fullest capacity tion; Stedman and Whipple are lesser known indi- (Stedman, 1919). As she wrote, “In starting this viduals who conducted some of the earliest ‘opportunity room’ it was the aim of the school to empirical studies in the field. This column will establish for gifted children an environment where explore how these four pioneers defined and theo- their abilities might develop in accordance with the rized giftedness and their subsequent influence on psychological principles underlying individuality” current definitions of giftedness. (Stedman, 1924, p. 5). In Education of the Gifted, Stedman did not offer Lulu Stedman an explicit definition of giftedness. Instead, she described the characteristics of the group of chil- Lulu Stedman was a “training teacher” (now dren enrolled in the opportunity room. These referred to as a clinical faculty member) who included “enterprising,” “adventurous,” “maturity,” worked with preservice teachers in the practical “greatly above average,” “self-control,” and “poise of application of teaching skills at the Los Angeles an adult.” The group of 10 children comprising the State Normal School, which in 1918 had recently inaugural opportunity room was initially selected become part of the University of California system from the results of a battery of achievement and (Minton, 1988). Stedman established an opportu- aptitude tests. The students ranged in age from 7 to nity room for gifted students in January 1918 just 11 years of age; however, the Stanford-Binet indi- after this transition took place. In 1919, Sierra cated a mental age ranging from 11 1/2 to 14 1/2. Educational News, the official publication of the Their intelligence quotients (IQ) ranged from 125

38 summer 2005 • vol 28, no 3 to 167. This selection pro c e s s included superior intelligence along C h i l d ren Ab ove 180 IQ was published remained in place at the time with a list of behaviors or traits that in 1942, no established definition of Education of the Gifted was published most often accompanied superior genius existed. Ho l l i n g w o rth postu- in 1924, except that the lower range intelligence. By her standards, a 130 l a t e d , of IQ scores had been raised to 140. IQ (Stanford-Binet) qualified a child Mental endowment appeared to be as having superior intelligence. Only It will perhaps be many ye a r s the sole criterion for selection into 1 in 100, or the top 1% of children, b e f o re it will be appare n t this opportunity room for gifted chil- was born with a 130 IQ or above whether the children studied dren. Despite Stedman’s lack of a def- (Hollingworth, 1924, 1927, 1928, h e rein are geniuses or not. inition of giftedness, she described 1931, 1932, 1936, 1937a, 1939a). Perhaps this can never be deter- qualifying opportunity room students Descriptions of gifted childre n mined, as the word “g e n i u s” as “endowed with superior intellec- included “m a t u re, ” “d e p e n d a b l e , ” may eventually be found to have tual endowment,” “superior ability,” “wise,” “w i t t y,” “youngest chro n o l o g i- no meaning that can be agre e d “extraordinary ability,” “exceedingly cally in class,” “e xcellent memory,” and upon. All we know about the studious,” and having learned to read “e n j oys the company of adults” status of the subjects of the pre- at a very early age (Stedman, 1924). ( Ho l l i n g w o rth, 1924, 1927, 1931). sent study is that they test above Academic behaviors in these childre n 180 IQ (S-B) and are thus more Leta Hollingworth comprised early interest in both num- than +10 PE (probable erro r ) bers and words, as did an ability to re a d re m ove d from mediocrity in T h rou ghout Leta Ho l l i n g w o rt h’s with comprehension at a young age; general intelligence. (p. 1) work, definitions of giftedness often a d vanced awareness of the clock, calen- appeared in the introduction of each d a r, and almanac; and relentless curios- In adulthood, Ho l l i n g w o rth found publication, as if to establish early on ity (Ho l l i n g w o rth, 1924, 1927, 1928). that cre a t i ve thinking of high merit the distinct nature of gifted students. By the 1930s, Hollingworth began a p p e a red in persons testing most often In 1927, Hollingworth felt that the to acknowledge that giftedness could at 180 IQ. “Ab ove 180 IQ (S-B, 1916) field was still too embryonic for manifest itself in additional ways. She original re s e a rch is often sponta- “established and static terminology.” n ow included the arts, drawing, neously and successfully undert a k e n , At this time she stated, “Nearly all we mechanical aptitude, abstract knowl- b e t ween the eighteen and the twe n t y - really know about gifted children has edge, and leadership (Hollingworth, fifth birthdays, by these persons test- been learned from researchers in the 1931, 1932, 1939b). She acknowl- i n g” (Ho l l i n g w o rth , 1937b, p. 75). past ten years” (p. 3). As research in edged that intelligence could be mea- Ho l l i n g w o r t h’s definition of gifted- the field of giftedness continued to sured, yet the Stanford-Binet only ness included those children testing at evolve, so too would the definition. measured the degree of intelligence, or above 130 IQ, or the top 1% of Hollingworth would eventually offer not the kind (Hollingworth, 1932). c h i l d ren. Such children exhibited sig- not only definitions, but also lists of The 1930s also offered the first nificantly different behaviors than behaviors and traits that characterized glimpses of identified gifted children those of the mainstream gifted popula- gifted children as a whole. entering adulthood, which aided in tion. Howe ve r, tow a rd the end of her Hollingworth’s first articles in the further defining the thresholds for c a re e r, Ho l l i n g w o r th encouraged field centered on the study of Child IQs in the upper ranges (Holling- b roadening the definition of giftedness E, who possessed a 187 IQ. However, worth, 1937b). to incorporate more nebulous behav- Child E was referred to as “prodi- Ho l l i n g w o rth also re c o g n i zed a dis- iors such as creativity and leadership. gious,” not gifted. Hollingworth con- tinction within the ranges of superior sulted several dictionaries to help mental ability. Those children with a Lewis Terman clarify for the reader the meaning of 180 IQ and above posed special chal- prodigious. Included were the words lenges to the school system, where Lewis Terman’s definition of gift- wonderful and extraordinary (Holling- c h i l d ren with significant mental edness was inextricably tied to that of worth, 1917, 1922). e n d owments could rarely be satisfied intelligence. As a graduate student, As Hollingworth’s research deep- socially or academically (Ho l l i n g - Terman studied Alfred Binet’s work ened, her definition of giftedness w o r th, 1942). When her book on intelligence tests, and nearly a

gifted child today 39 Pioneering Definitions and Theoretical Positions

decade later, he somewhat serendipi- mental ability equated to a 125 IQ or Dull 70–80 IQ tously found himself transforming above, which was found in 2 out of Feebleminded below 70 IQ the Binet-Simon into the Stanford- 100 children. Binet for an American audience However, by 1919, Terman, now However, he rescinded this conclu- (Minton, 1988). His work on the using the St a n f o rd - Binet, raised sion after realizing that this would Army Alpha and Beta during World exceptionality to a 140 IQ and above, include too many of the school-aged War I further cemented his belief that or the top 1% of children, in identi- population “and about a quarter of all measuring the degree of intelligence fying 59 superior students. These stu- college graduates test at or above this had great implications for scientific dents were also described as high in level” (Hollingworth, 1939a, p. 100). psychology and education (Terman, general intelligence, sustained atten- Genius was now considered 180 IQ 1930). Due to the publication of the tion, will power, persistence, depend- and above (Terman, 1930). In fur- Stanford-Binet, Terman also had a a b i l i t y, and studiousness. Te r m a n thering his distinction betwe e n vested interest in propagating the (1919) noted that the “[t]ypical supe- genius and talent, Terman (1930) intelligence test and its pre s u m e d rior [child] is exceptionally loveable stated, merits for educational purposes. and charming, the kind of child one Curiously, Terman’s doctoral dis- would like to adopt” (p. 185). By genius we mean the very s e rta tion, Genius and Stupidity: A In 1921, Terman began identify- exceptionally superior grades of Study of Some of the In t e l l e c t u a l ing the sample for Genetic Studies of ability, whether the ability in Processes of Seven “Bright” and Seven Ge n i u s, his seminal longitudinal question be general or specific. “Stupid” Boys, gave no definition of study on gifted children. Clear guide- By talent we mean a superior brightness. In an article based on his lines were established for qualifying grade of ability whether general dissertation, he wrote, subjects, and the ove rw h e l m i n g or special, that is exceptional majority of children included in the but less so than the grade con- In the beginning, then, we do study had an IQ of 140 or above stituting genius. (p. 406) not define ‘brightness’ or ‘d u l l- (Terman, 1924). Terman’s reasoning n e s s’ any more definitely than for the “arbitrary line” at 140 rested Aware of the limits of intelligence does the world in general. The with two points. First, he argued that testing, Terman (1921) stated, “How aim was to secure subjects “children of this grade of superiority absurd . . . to regard intelligence of whom most people would re a d - are sufficiently unlike average chil- every kind as of equal rank with intel- ily agree in classifying one way d ren to need special educational ligence of every other kind” (p. 131). or the other, and then pro c e e d o p p o r tunities,” and second “m o s t to the investigation of what con- extensive investigations of superior Guy M. Whipple stitutes the fundamental intel- children as a class have concerned lectual differences between the themselves for the most part with Guy M. Whipple, also a disciple of two groups. A large number of subjects of this grade of intelligence intelligence testing, had worked with studies ought to end by giving or above” (Terman, 1930, p. 570). Terman on the Army Alpha and Beta us a definition of terms. At pre- Terman initially thought that during World War I. He, too, fore- sent, such definitions are lack- those children testing at a 140 IQ casted the impact and practical use ing. (Terman, 1906, p. 316). should be classified as geniuses. In intelligence tests would have for psy- 1916, he had suggested the following chology and education (Ba g l e y, Even after completing this investi- classification of children on the basis 1942). gation, Terman still failed to offer a of IQ (cited in Hollingworth, 1926, Whipple’s first published article on definition of genius or brightness. In p. 42): gifted children dates back to 1911. In 1911, now armed with the Binet- 1919, he wrote Classes for Gi f t e d Simon and a numerical representa- Genius or near genius a b ove 140 IQ Children, the precursor to Holling- tion of intelligence, Terman began Very superior 120–140 IQ worth’s first textbook on gifted chil- seeking children of exceptional men- Superior 110–120 IQ dren. This work included discussions tal ability. His results were published Average 90–110 IQ on the value of testing to identify in a 1915 article in which exceptional Dull normal 80–90 IQ gifted children along with suggestions

40 summer 2005 • vol 28, no 3 for the organization and oper- Stedman, Hollingworth, superior intellectual endow- ation of special opportunity ment based? The best explana- rooms. In one tribute to Terman, and Whipple all tion rests with that of individual Whipple, written after his d i f f e r ences, originally intro- death in 1941, educational remained confident duced by Francis Galton in p s ychologist William C. 1869. Hollingworth, Terman, Bagley gave Whipple credit in the science of psychology. and Whipple all cited the work for being “the first of the psy- They believed that the of Galton as a major determiner chologists to give adequate in explaining superior intellect recognition to the special Stanford-Binet and other ( Ho l l i n g w o r th, 1924, 1942; problems involved in the edu- Terman, 1922, 1930; Whipple, cation of gifted childre n” mental tests produced 1924). Ad d i t i o n a l l y, none of (Bagley, 1942, p. 468). reliable estimates of a these authors offered a theory of Whipple felt intelligence learning to account for superior and educational tests revealed student’s mental function. mental ability. Howe ve r individual differences within Terman (1921) did state that heterogeneously grouped stu- “finding out what is demanded dents, allowing for appropriate edu- sift out students with superior mental of intelligence and then analyzing the ability from the general school popu- cational practices to be applied mental functions which meet the (Whipple, 1923). He recognized that lation, marking them as qualitatively demand . . . is the only method of superior mental endowment had different from their school peers and approach which will bring us nearer always been an indicator of gifted- thus in need of different education to a psychological solution of the ness, harking back to the time of practices. However, the authors dif- intelligence problem” (p. 127). Plato. However, only with the advent fered on the lower limits of the range. Stedman, Ho l l i n g w o rth , Te r m a n , of intelligence tests could measure- Whipple cited 115 IQ as a minimum, and Whipple all remained confident ment for such capacity be done with Ho l l i n g w o rth cited 130 IQ, and in the science of psyc h o l o g y. They any genuine reliability (W h i p p l e , Stedman and Terman confined their b e l i e ved that the St a n f o rd - Binet and 1924). lower range to 140 IQ. other mental tests produced re l i a b l e Whipple’s definition of giftedness W h i p p l e’s work in 1919 identified estimates of a student’s mental func- was two-pronged. Borrowing fro m other tests helpful in selecting gifted tion. The lower limits of giftedness the German tradition, he proposed c h i l d ren for special classes. These ranged from 115 to 140 IQ, depend- that a gifted student was one who included the Thurstone Re a s o n i n g ing on the re s e a rc h e r. Through their could compress two years of school- Test B, the Thorndike Reading Scale w o rk with gifted children, all re c o g- ing into one. Whipple estimated that A, and the Courtis Arithmetic Se r i e s . n i zed that gifted children exhibited this ability comprised approximately Ne ve r theless, Te r m a n’s St a n f o rd - Bi n e t intellect not only through specific aca- 10% of American school children. An remained the gold standard in terms demic skills, but also in the areas of additional or alternative method of of mental tests for identifying gifted l e a d e r s h i p, the arts, and other cre a t i ve defining giftedness centered on a stu- students. “Superior mental endow- e n d e a vors. Along with the concept of dent’s IQ. Keeping in concert with ment,” “a maturity beyond their giftedness initially offered betwe e n the estimate of 10%, this would years,” “early readers,” “youngest in 1910 and 1940, leadership, cre a t i v i t y, include students with a 115 IQ or class,” and “e x t remely studious” we re and artistic abilities have been added greater (Whipple, 1919, 1923). various descriptors or characteristics to current definitions of giftedness. commonly used by these re s e a rc h e r s Terman and Ho l l i n g w o r th also Comparisons to explain the manifestation of gifted- b e l i e ved that these abilities existed, ness in students. but could not be adequately mea- IQ was considered the final litmus Theoretical positions (i.e., those s u red. In 1939, Ho l l i n g w o rth stated test in identifying gifted students dur- ideas restricted to the hypothetical) “ Educational psychology works con- ing this time period. All four pioneers were not fully realized in any of these stantly to find ways of knowing how placed great reliance on the Binet- a u t h o r s’ works. Still, the question to identify these additional elements. Simon and later the Stanford-Binet to begs, on what theory was the idea of It will be a long time before we

gifted child today 41 Pioneering Definitions and Theoretical Positions

a d vance to a point where we can The integration of public Connecticut, Georgia, Ok l a - m e a s u re these as well as we can homa, Florida, and Tennessee, all n ow measure intelligence” policies and broadened re q u i red either the top 5%, 99th ( Ho l l i n g w o rth , 1939a, p. 580). p e rcentile, or two standard devia- C o n s e q u e n t l y, instruments to conceptions of giftedness tions above the mean on stan- m e a s u re these additional abilities have changed the face d a rd i zed tests of intelligence as exist today, but experts still stru g- p a rt of the criteria for identifying gle with ill-defined constru c t s of giftedness initially students. Pe n n s y l vania was the and poor psychometric pro p e r- only state to re f e rence an actual ties (Jolly & Hall, 2004). established by the research IQ score of 130 or above. Ot h e r The irony of many of today’s p re valent characteristics noted in concepts of giftedness is that and practices of Stedman, state definitions included specific there are no appropriate mea- Hollingworth, Terman, academic ability, cre a t i v i t y, lead- sures to capture objectively the e r s h i p, and visual and perf o r m- additional intelligences or and Whipple. ing arts (Stephens & Karnes, behaviors included. Researchers 2 0 0 0 ) . like Terman and Hollingworth The integration of public we re uncomfortable with policies and broadened concep- including such behaviors because Contemporary tions of giftedness have changed the intelligence, at that time, was the only face of giftedness initially established trait they believed could be measured Definitions of Giftedness by the re s e a rch and practices of with any cert a i n t y. Contemporary Stedman, Ho l l i n g w o r t h , Terman, and Disagreement over a definition of researchers and practitioners cannot Whipple. Their original definitions escape the legacy of these early pio- giftedness still confounds the field of relied largely on measures of intelli- neers, who conceded that giftedness gifted education today. The federal gence and narrowly defined who was not limited to academic prowess, government has issued its definition would be identified: primarily White but could include leadership and cre- of giftedness, which individual states students from middle and upper class ative pursuits. However, other forms may follow, but are not obliged to do homes. Only within the last seve r a l of giftedness were overlooked because so. As of 2004, the federal definition decades has “the field attempt[ed] to science had not yet developed mea- is as follows: d i vest itself from the classicism and sures to determine the degree of such racism associated with the notable talent appro p r i a t e l y. In his art i c l e The term “gifted and talented p o r tion of the re s e a rch of the last cen- “Three Faces of Intellect,” Guilford students” means children and t u r y” (Friedman & Rogers, 1998, p. (1959) became one of the first youth who give evidence of 2 0 ) . researchers to propose seriously that high performance capability in There has been a concerted effort the psychological and educational areas such as intellectual, cre- to identify students traditionally communities consider a multidimen- a t i ve, artistic, or leadership absent from the gifted population, sional view of intelligence. His work capacity, or in specific academic including racial minority students allowed for contemporary theorists to fields, and who require services and those from low socioeconomic offer models of giftedness that are or activities not ordinarily pro- backgrounds. “Ford (1996) estimated more inclusive. Still, the definition of vided by the school in order to that African American, Hi s p a n i c giftedness remained relatively static fully develop such capabilities. American, and Native American stu- until the 1970s, when a formalized (P.L. 100-297) dents we r e underre p resented by federal definition (Marland, 1972) about 50% in programs for the emerged that included leadership and Although an arbitrary IQ score for g i f t e d” (Ry s e r, 2004, p. 41). The the arts as facets of giftedness. Despite intelligence has been entirely re m ove d most persistent form of identification these additions, the field’s reliance on f r om the federal definition, such comes from psychometrically sound intelligence tests remains a central cri- s c o res are still used as a criterion for instruments that remove the implied terion of giftedness when identifying identifying giftedness at the state leve l . bias traditional measures of intelli- students. In a 2000 surve y, 37 states, including gence possess.

42 summer 2005 • vol 28, no 3 Instruments such as the Naglieri ness using five separate elements: nat- nearly a century after its establish- No n v erbal Ability Test (NNAT, ural abilities (top 10% of age peers), ment. Naglieri, 2003) and the Test of intrapersonal catalysts, deve l o p m e n t a l No n v erbal Intelligence (TO N I ; p rocess, environmental catalysts, and References Brown, Sherbenou, & Jo h n s e n , chance interacting (positively or nega- 1997) are intended to be used with t i vely) to produce a talent or skill (top Bagley, W. C. (1942). Guy Montrose students who are culturally different. 10% of age peers). Ta n n e n b a u m’s Whipple. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), “Areas of cultural identity are multi- (2003) Star Model tenders a “p s yc h o- The psyc h o l o g y of learning: The faceted and include not only national logical filigree of factors” to explain forty-first yearbook of the National origin, but also religion, geographic giftedness: general ability, special apti- Society for the Study of Education, region, urban/suburban/rural, age, tude, nonintellective requisites, envi- Part II (pp. 466–469). Chicago: gender/sex, class, and exceptionality” ronmental supports, and chance that National Society for the Study of (Johnsen, 2004, pp. 15–16). can account for gifted behaviors. Education. During the 1960s, the empirical St e r n b e r g’s (2003) Tr i a rchic Theory Brown, L., Sherbenou, R., & study of creativity emerged after highlights three elements of gifted- Johnsen, S. (1997). Test of nonver- Gu i l f o rd’s (1959) paradigm-shifting ness: analytical, synthetic, and practi- bal intelligence (3rd ed.). Austin, a rticle. Ho l l i n g w o rth (1939b) had cal. Analytical giftedness refers to TX: PRO-ED. p redicted that future psyc h o m e t r i c academic knowledge and application Davis, G. A. (2003). Identifying cre- a d vances could allow for the valid and typically measured by achieve m e n t ative students, teaching for creative reliable measurement of additional and aptitude tests. Synthetic gifted- growth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. factors of giftedness (e.g., cre a t i v i t y ) . ness refers to cre a t i v i t y. Practical gift- Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted Howe ve r, creativity has shown to be edness re p resents the ability to apply education (3rd ed., pp. 311–334). multifarious and perplexing. E. Pa u l the analytic or synthetic giftedness to Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Torrance, a pioneer in the study of e ve r yday problems. Within St e r n - Friedman, R. C., & Rogers, K. B. c re a t i v i t y, conceded that no one single b e r g’s three elements, problem solving (1998). Talent in context: Hi s t o r i c a l m e a s u rement could capture the multi- and decision making are ongoing. and social perspectives on giftedness. tude of ways that creativity can mani- Re n z u l l i’s (2003) Three-Ring Mo d e l Washington, DC: American fest itself (Davis, 2003), although this of Giftedness conceptualizes gifted- Ps ychological Association. has not stopped re s e a rchers fro m ness as three entities—above - a ve r a g e Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts attempting to capture cre a t i v i t y a b i l i t y, task commitment, and cre a t i v- into talents: The DMGT as a n u m e r i c a l l y. The federal definition of ity (all subject to environmental fac- d e v elopmental theory. In N. giftedness and theorists in the field tors and the child’s personality)— Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), a g ree that creativity is import a n t , w o rking in concert to produce work s Handbook of gifted education (3rd either as a separate form of giftedness q u a l i t a t i vely different from the norm. ed., pp. 60–74). Boston: Allyn and or a fundamental part of general gift- Howe ve r, none of the above - m e n- Bacon. edness. Still, this agreement has not tioned facets within each model, with Gu i l f o rd, J. P. (1959). Three faces of diminished the debate involving how the exception of general intellectual intellect. The American Ps yc h o l o g i s t , to define, identify, and set educational a b i l i t y, can be measured in any mean- 65, 4 6 9 – 4 7 9 . policy accordingly (Pi i r to, 1998). The i n g ful and psychometrically sound Hollingworth, L. S. (1917). The psy- same argument can be applied to m a n n e r. chology of a prodigious child. other areas such as leadership. The legacy of Stedman, Holling- Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, In an ongoing effort to achieve a worth, Terman, and Whipple remains 101–110. m o re inclusive population of gifted at the heart of the definition of gift- Ho l l i n g w o r th, L. S. (1922). Su b - students, contemporary re s e a rc h e r s edness and the necessity of a qualita- sequent history of E; Five years h a ve offered conceptual framew o rk s tively different education for gifted after the initial report. Journal of to better explain giftedness and its students. Their research continues to Applied Psychology, 6, 205–210. multidimensional facets. Ga g n é ’s inform the field of gifted education as Ho l l i n g w o r th, L. S. (1924). Pro - (2003) Di f f e rentiated Model of it seeks an appropriate, agreed-upon visions for intellectually superior Giftedness and Talent explains gifted- definition or model for giftedness children. In M. V. O’Shea (Ed.),

gifted child today 43 Pioneering Definitions and Theoretical Positions

The child: His nature and his needs practical guide (pp. 1–21). Waco, Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Giftedness (pp. 277–299). New York: The TX: Prufrock Press. according to the theory of success- Children Foundation. Jolly, J. L. & Hall, J. R. (2004). ful intelligence. In N. Colangelo Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted Technical information re g a rd i n g & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook children: Their nature and nurture. assessment. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. New York: Macmillan. Identifying gifted students: A practi- 88–99). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hollingworth, L. S. (1927). Who are cal guide (pp. 51–105). Waco, TX: Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003). Nature gifted children? Child St u d y, 5, Prufrock Press. and nurture of giftedness. In N. 3–5. Ma r l a n d , S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Hollingworth, L. S. (1928). The dis- the gifted and talented: Re p o rt to the Handbook of gifted education (3rd cipline of highly intelligent chil- C o n g ress of the United States by the ed., pp. 45–59). Boston: Allyn and d ren. Pa re n t’s Magazine, 3, 1 9 , U.S. Commissioner of Education and Bacon. 41–42. b a c k g round papers submitted to the Terman, L. M. (1906). Genius and Ho l l i n g w o rth, L. S. (1931). How U.S. Office of Ed u c a t i o n, 2 vo l s . s t u p i d i t y. Pedagogical Se m i n a r y, should gifted children be edu- Wa s h i n g t o n , DC: U.S. Gove r n m e n t 13, 307–373. cated? Ba l t i m o re Bulletin of Printing Office. (Government Do c - Terman, L. M. (1915). The mental Education, 50, 195–198. uments, Y4.L 11/2: G36) hygiene of exceptional childre n . Ho l l i n g w o rth, L. S. (1932). Minton, H. L. (1988). L e w i s Pedagogical Se m i n a r y, 22, 5 2 9 – 5 3 7 . Recognizing gifted children. The Te rman: Pioneer in psyc h o l o g i c a l Terman, L. M. (1919). The intelli- League Script, 13, 7–9. t e s t i n g . New Yo rk: New Un i ve r s i t y gence of school children. Boston: Ho l l i n g w o r th, L. S. (1936). The Pre s s . Houghton-Mifflin. founding of Public School 500: Naglieri, J. A. (2003). Naglieri non- Terman, L. M. (1921). Intelligence Sp e yer School. Teachers College verbal ability test. San Antonio, TX : and its measurement. Journal of Record, 38, 119–128. The Ps ychological Corporation. Educational Psychology, 12, 127– Hollingworth, L. S. (1937a). Bright Piirto, J. S. (1998). U nderstanding 133. students take care of themselves. those who create. Dayton, OH: Terman, L. M. (1922). A new No r th American Re v i e w, 243, Gifted Psychology Press. approach to the study of genius. 261–273. Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Conception of Psychological Review, 19, 310–318. Hollingworth, L. S. (1937b). The giftedness and its relationship to i m p o r tance of studying mental social capital. In N. Colangelo & Terman, L. M. (1924). The conserva- devices. Jo u r nal of Consulting G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of tion of talent. School and Society, Psychology, 1, 73–75. gifted education ( 3 rd ed., pp. 19, 359–364. Ho l l i n g w o rth, L. S. (1939a). 75–87). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Terman, L. M. (1930). Au t o b i o g r a p h y Problems in relationships between Ryser, G. R. (2004). Culture-fair and of Lewis M. Terman. In C. elementary and secondary schools nonbiased assessment. In S. K. Mu rchison (Ed.), Hi s t o r y of psyc h o l- in the case of highly intelligent Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted o g y in autobiography (Vol. 2, pp. pupils. Jo u r nal of Ed u c a t i o n a l students: A practical guide ( p p. 297–331). Wo rc e s t e r, MA: Clark Sociology, 13, 90–102. 41–49). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Un i versity Pre s s . Hollingworth, L. S. (1939b). What Stedman, L. M. (1919). An experi- Whipple, G. M. (1919). Classes for we know about the early selection ment in educational democracy. gifted children. Bloomington, IL: and training of leaders. Teachers Si e r ra Educational Ne w s, 1 5 , Public School Publishing. College Record, 40, 575–592. 515–518. Whipple, G. M. (1923). Provisions Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children Stedman, L. M. (1924). Education of for gifted children. Mother and a b ove 180 IQ. Yo n k e r s - o n - the gifted. Yo n k e r s - o n - Hu d s o n , Child, 4(10), 2–11. Hudson, NY: World Book. NY: World Book. Whipple, G. M. (Ed.). (1924). The Johnsen, S. K. (2004). Definitions, Stephens, K. R., & Karnes, F. A. t w e n t y - t h i rd yearbook of the models, and characteristics of (2000). State definitions for the National Society for the Study of gifted students. In S. K. Johnsen gifted and talented re v i s i t e d . Education, Part I. B loomington, (Ed.), Identifying gifted students: A Exceptional Children, 66, 2 1 9 – 2 3 8 . IL: Public School Publishing.

44 summer 2005 • vol 28, no 3