Effective Development of Gifted Students After reading about the article ” Affective Development of Gifted Students” write one page typed document that explains how gifted students may process content differently than non-gifted students.

Include anecdotal information from your experience as well as challenges that may occur if a gifted student is not a high achiever.

Fostering Gifted Students’

Affective Development:

A Look at the Impact of Academic Self-Concept

Anne N. Rinn

Jonathan A. Plucker

Vicki B. Stocking

A Feature Article Published in

TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus

Volume 6, Issue 4, April 2010

Copyright © 2009 by the author. This work is licensed to the public under the Creative Commons Attribution

License

Fostering Gifted Students’Affective Development:

A Look at the Impact of Academic Self-Concept

Anne N. Rinn

Jonathan A. Plucker

Vicki B. Stocking

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to provide educators and counselors with a framework for understanding

the academic self-concepts of gifted students. As academic self-concept is theoretically

linked with other constructs, including academic achievement and aspirations, it is vital that educators

and counselors are aware of the experiences gifted students may face. Implications for

educators and counselors are discussed.

Keywords

Gifted, self-concept, effective development

SUGGESTED CITATION:

Rinn, A. N., Plucker, J. A., & Stocking, V.B. (2010). Fostering Gifted Students’Affective Development:

A Look at the Impact of Academic Self-Concept. TEACHING Exceptional Children

Plus, 6(4) Article 1. Retrieved [date] from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol6/iss4/art1.

Teachers often see signs that affect—the

social and emotional aspects of students’

lives—plays an important role in their

classrooms. For example, teachers routinely

witness the effects of test anxiety, mood,

emotional trauma, peer influences, confidence,

and motivation on academic performance.

These emotional and social factors are

rarely reported on report cards or standardized

test results, but practitioners have always

believed that non-academic factors influence

how well students learn, perform, and

achieve.

Over the past decade or so, researchers

within the fields of gifted education and

talent development have explored these affective

influences on achievement. For example,

researchers have explored psychological adjustment,

the psychological and behavioral

consequences of lack of challenge in school,

depression and self-esteem, and stress and

coping (Kanevsky & Keighley, 2003; Gallagher,

Harradine, & Coleman, 1997; Plucker

& McIntire, 1996).

Self-concept is one affective construct

that has received a great deal of attention in

the scholarly literature and popular media.

Self-concept is, at the most simplistic level,

an idea or set of ideas one has about oneself.

A child has distinct views of self within various

areas, including general self-concept and

more specific social, physical, and academic

self-concepts (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985).

During adolescence, these ideas become more

abstract and differentiated as more complex

forms of self-representation take shape (Erikson,

1968; Harter, 1986). The ideas students

hold about themselves provide useful information

for teachers, as students’ self-concept

impacts student learning and achievement.

In particular, the academic selfconcept,

or how one feels about his or her

academic abilities, is helpful for understanding

a variety of school-related issues, including

educational and occupational aspirations

and school achievement (Hoge &

Renzulli, 1993). Many researchers have

split academic self-concept into mathematical

and verbal self-concepts, along

with a general “school” self-concept (e.g.,

Plucker & Stocking, 2001). A student’s

perceptions of his or her math ability may

influence the kinds of math activities he or

she pursues, such as puzzles, math brain

teasers, and competitions. Likewise, a student’s

perceptions of his or her verbal ability

may influence the kinds of verbal activities

he or she pursues, such as books of

differing reading levels, writing or literature

courses, and word games. In turn, participation

in these sorts of activities can

influence future decisions, such as enrollment

in advanced courses, and even choice

of college major and future occupation.

Math and verbal self-concepts have also

been linked to achievement in school. Students

who feel better about their math or

verbal ability tend to perform better in the

corresponding subject area (Marsh, Parker,

& Barnes, 1985; Marsh & Yeung, 1998).

Self-Concept and Gifted Students

The general academic self-concept

of gifted children has been addressed in a

variety of ways and toward a number of

different ends, but one thing remains the

same: academic self-concept is important

for academically gifted students. In gen3

“Students who feel better

about their math or verbal ability

tend to perform better in the

corresponding subject area.”

eral, gifted students tend to have positive

general academic self-concepts, which are

higher than those of less academically talented

peers (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993), as well

as higher than their own social self-concepts

(Ross & Parker, 1980).

General academic self-concept has

been positively linked to achievement for

gifted students. Some researchers (e.g., Caslyn

& Kenny, 1977; Garg, 1992) have found

that a student must first do well in school to

have a high academic self-concept, while others

(e.g., Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdtke, Köller, &

Baumert, 2005; Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper,

2004) support the notion that a high academic

self-concept is a precursor to achievement.

Strong arguments exist for both sides, suggesting

that the relationship between academic

achievement and academic selfconcept

is likely reciprocal (Hamachek, 1995;

House, 2000). Further, Marsh (1991) found

high school students’ academic self-concepts

are an indicator of their decisions to attend

postsecondary education. And, among college

students, academic self-concept is related to

aspirations for graduate school (Rinn, 2007)

and career aspirations (Betz & Hackett,

1983).

The ramifications of a decrease in

academic self-concept are many. Both socioemotional

and academic development could

be hindered. For example, Harter (1992)

found that, in a self-contained gifted program,

students whose perceived competence decreased,

experienced a corresponding decrease

in intrinsic motivation to participate in

the gifted program. Further, Marsh and Yeung

(1998) found that academic self-concept is a

predictor of course selection, even when taking

into account students’ school grades. Students

with a low academic self-concept might

be more likely to choose less challenging

classes and programs than students with a

higher academic self-concept.

Specific math and verbal selfconcepts

may provide more detailed information

about student functioning than

general academic self-concept. Although

gifted children tend to have more positive

views of their general and specific abilities

than other students (Brounstein, Holahan,

& Dreyden, 1991), the relationship between

achievement and self-concept in a

particular academic area is not clear (Hoge

& Renzulli, 1993). For example, a gifted

student demonstrating strong mathematical

and verbal achievement will not necessarily

have both high mathematical and verbal

self-concepts. As teachers, we cannot

always assume gifted students’ math or

verbal self-concepts are based on their

achievement, and vice-versa. Given the

relationship between self-concept and

other outcomes, this finding may be of

concern to teachers of academically gifted

students.

Two popular models of academic

self-concept development exist within the

field of gifted education that may provide

insight regarding the needs of academically

gifted students.

The Big Fish Little Pond Effect

When academically gifted students

are put in self-contained or pull-out programs,

attend Advanced Placement (AP)

classes, accelerate into more advanced

classes, or attend prestigious universities,

they will experience a new environment

with equally competent peers, usually

more challenging materials, and more rigorous

requirements. One reality they inevitably

have to encounter is a more competent

peer group than they are used to in a

regular classroom. This could be exciting

4

and threatening at the same time. This is exciting

because a peer group of equal academic

caliber gives personal validation to one’s

identity and serves to mutually reinforce each

other’s talents and interests. This can be

threatening, though, because individuals, particularly

those who might already feel insecure,

are likely to feel that the very talents

people have touted about them and the top

student status they have enjoyed in the regular

classroom are no longer a sure thing; there are

potentially more talented people in the new

peer group.

When two students of the same ability

or achievement level are put in different

classrooms or programs, the one who is with

the high ability or achievement group tends to

experience a temporarily lower self-concept

in respective domains than the one with the

less able group. This effect has been labeled

the Big Fish Little Pond Effect (BFLPE;

Marsh, Chessor, Craven, & Roche, 1995;

Marsh & Parker, 1984). The BFLPE is presumably

based on a social comparison theory

that argues people derive their self-concept by

comparing themselves with their immediate

peer group as a frame of reference. In other

words, a big fish that is used to being in a little

pond may reassess his or her own competence

when put into a larger pond, with even

bigger fish.

Although the BFLPE model is not

specific to gifted programs, facets of the

BFLPE have been examined with gifted

and high ability students ranging in grade

from the early elementary years (Tymms,

2001) to the college years (Rinn, 2007),

and the practical implications are obvious

and have already produced repercussions

in the gifted education community (e.g.,

Dai & Rinn, 2008; Plucker, Robinson,

Greenspon, Feldhusen, McCoach, & Subotnik,

2004). It is important to note that

the potential decrease in academic selfconcept

may not have any lasting effects

(Moon, Feldhusen, & Dillon, 1994). For

example, within the first few days in a

three-week residential program, academically

gifted children’s math and verbal

self-concepts were higher than average

(Plucker & Stocking, 2001). Further,

Marsh (1987) notes the BFLPE might be

smaller for older students, as they “typically

have some basis for the assessment

of their own academic skills that is independent

of the performances of their

classmates, and they often know how the

average ability level of their classmates

compares with some broader frame of reference”

(p. 282).

The Internal/External Frame of

Reference Model

By understanding the development

of math and verbal self-concept, we can

design instructional opportunities to promote

positive self-concept. One model that

helps us understand the development of

specific math and verbal self-concepts is

the internal/external frame of reference

model (I/E model; Marsh, 1986).

According to the I/E model, students

base their math and verbal selfconcepts

on two simultaneous sets of

5

“The Big Fish Little Pond Effect

is presumably based on a

social comparison theory that

argues that people derive their

self-concept by comparing

themselves with their immediate

peer group.”

comparisons. The internal comparison (or

“frame of reference”) includes an individual

student’s appraisal of his or her ability in one

academic area (e.g., math) compared to his or

her ability in other academic areas (e.g., English).

The external comparison is the student’s

evaluation of competence in that academic

area relative to the perceived ability of peers.

Peer groups provide important information

about relative standing in a given area (Festinger,

1954; Skaalvik & Rankin, 1990).

Therefore, a student’s self-concept in mathematics,

for example, is derived from his or

her perceived math competence relative to

how he or she performs in other subject areas

and how strong he or she thinks his or her

peers are in math. Of course, moving into a

new, more talented, peer group might result in

a BFLPE phenomenon.

The I/E model suggests that achievement

in one area has a direct positive effect

on self-concept in the related area (due to the

external comparisons) and a negative effect

on the self-concept in the other area (due to

the internal comparisons). For example, a

student’s verbal achievement would have a

strong positive impact on his or her verbal

self-concept and a moderate negative impact

on his or her math self-concept. The competing

effects of the external and internal comparisons

largely cancel each other out, and a

student’s math self-concept development may

appear to be unrelated to his or her verbal

self-concept, although he or she may have

very similar mathematics and verbal

achievement.

The I/E model has been applied to

gifted students’ math and verbal self-concept

development with some success. Williams

and Montgomery (1995) found evidence of

both internal and external comparisons in the

self-concept development of a group of high

school honors students. Plucker and Stocking

(2001) found that the I/E model successfully

explained the math and verbal selfconcept

development of academically

gifted students enrolled in an intensive

summer residential program. In addition,

they found evidence that the internal/

external frame of reference model explains

math and verbal self-concept development

for students with both mathematical and

verbal strengths, and students with

strengths in either, but not both, areas. Recently,

although they were not using a

gifted sample, Marsh and Hau (2004)

found support for the I/E model in a study

that included students from 26 countries,

illustrating the generalizability of the I/E

model. Mui, Yeung, Low, and Jin (2000)

found support for the I/E model with a

sample of gifted, Chinese adolescents.

Further, despite often found differences

in math and verbal self-concepts

among males and females, such that males

typically have higher math self-concepts

(Williams & Montgomery, 1995) and females

typically have higher verbal selfconcepts

(Marsh & Yeung, 1998), the I/E

model appears to work the same for both

males and females. Using a sample of 181

gifted adolescents, Rinn, McQueen, Clark,

and Rumsey (2008) did not find gender

differences within the I/E model, thus providing

support for Marsh’s (1986) original

notion that the I/E model is equally generalizable

to males and females. Other researchers

have also failed to find evidence

for gender differences with regard to the I/

E model (e.g., Marsh & Yeung).

Implications for Teachers and Counselors

Based on the BFLPE and the I/E

model, Marsh and his colleagues (1995)

suggested a number of strategies to decrease

the negative effects of social comparison

on student’s academic self6

concepts. We have elaborated upon and added

to these suggestions in light of our research

and experiences working with gifted and talented

adolescents in a variety of instructional

and social settings.

1. Recognize the breadth of self-concepts

that may be held by each talented student.

The foundation of the I/E model is that a

student may have very different selfconcepts

in different content areas, even if

the student is equally successful in all areas.

Assuming that a student sees him- or

herself as very talented in English just because

he or she tests well in all academic

areas overlooks the potential impact of

internal and external comparisons in that

student’s life. A teacher is better off examining

the ways in which the gifted adolescent

sees him- or herself as having academic

strengths in some areas and weaknesses

in others. Gifted adolescents see

themselves as complex, multifaceted people,

even within the area of academic performance,

and educators and parents

should try to see them in the same light.

2. Self-concept should not be viewed as a

means to its own end. There is little credible

evidence that boosting self-concept

with praise and a lowered level of challenge

provides lasting change in a student’s

intellectual achievement. Indeed,

challenge may have a short-term, negative

effect on self-concept but a positive longterm

effect as a student’s confidence

slowly increases. In this way, even failure

during a challenging task can lead to an

enhanced and healthy self-concept within

a specific academic area. Emphasizing a

student’s unique, realistic contribution,

rather than praising a hollow intellectual

success can boost self-confidence in a

challenging program. Although an unrealistically

high academic selfconcept

is not healthy for gifted students’

development, teachers should be

aware of opportunities to provide reasonable

feedback that will encourage

students’ positive academic selfconcepts

and perhaps lead to increased

achievement.

“Information about learning

styles, motivation, and selfconcept

can be very helpful

when designing learning experiences

for talented adolescents.”

3. Consider information beyond grades

and test scores when planning educational

experiences for gifted and talented

students. Information about

learning styles, motivation, and selfconcept

can be very helpful when designing

learning experiences for talented

adolescents. Learning more

about our students will help us develop

academic experiences to meet their

affective needs without compromising

intellectual rigor. For example, teachers

can develop assessments in which

students pursue projects of personal

interest. Gifted students, like other students,

benefit from the opportunity to

express themselves through their work,

and providing students with choices

within a curriculum provides a unique

basis for self-assessment and will

likely result in increased motivation

and positive self-concept. Depending

on their age, gifted students can benefit

7

particularly from independent research

projects that can be designed to answer

questions of interest to the students. Several

gifted education models (e.g., the

Schoolwide Enrichment Model, Renzulli,

2005; the Parallel Curriculum Model,

Tomlinson et al., 2002) have been shown

to be especially effective in this regard.

4. Balance student exposure to competitive,

cooperative, and individualistic activities

in the classroom. Some gifted students

may thrive in a highly competitive atmosphere,

but that type of environment can

foster social comparisons that may lower

self-concept, as per the BFLPE. Students

are better served if a variety of approaches

are used in the classroom. For example,

we visited an advanced math class at a

summer program in time to see a rousing

game of “Around the World,” where students

were pitted one against the other in

a test of speed and trigonometry facts. A

number of students clearly enjoyed the

game and appreciated the opportunity to

compare their skills to others, but others

were nervous and self-conscious. At another

intensive summer program, students

working on team-based technology projects

often faltered due to their lack of

familiarity with cooperative activities in

which one group was not “the winner”

(Plucker & Gorman, 1995). Students need

to experience a mixture of cooperative

(working with others), individualistic

(competing against oneself), and competitive

(competing against others) environments

to become comfortable with learning

under a variety of such contexts.

5. Consider each student’s participation in

multiple instructional contexts. Gifted

students spend their academic lives in a

variety of instructional settings (Stocking,

1998). In addition to the regular classroom,

they often attend after-school,

weekend, and summer programs, all of

which allow the talented adolescent to

interact with a different peer group

than is found in regular classroom settings.

The impact of a particular instructional

context on academic selfconcept

may be influenced by the perceived

competence of peers, the

method for selecting students for a

program, the ability of the teacher to

work with academically talented students,

the level of competition, type of

curriculum and level of curriculum differentiation,

and assessment strategies

(Plucker & Stocking, 2002). With talented

adolescents often participating in

several such contexts over the course

of a year, teachers should consider

how all of these experiences influence

adolescents’ views of themselves.

6. Provide students with feedback about

individual growth instead of comparisons

with other students in the class.

This principle is an elaboration of the

previous recommendation about balancing

competition, collaboration, and

individualism in the classroom. If students

are exposed to all of these experiences,

it is important for teachers to

provide students with feedback about

their progress within each area. With

respect to individualistic experiences,

students should receive feedback about

performance relative to their own baselines

and expected growth. In some

cases, assessing gifted students according

to the standards for their age is irrelevant

to the instructor and the students,

who realize that age or gradebased

standards far underestimate the

8

students’ potential performance. Regarding

cooperative activities, students should

receive information about their interpersonal

skills, and students should receive a

wide range of data about their performance

relative to peers during and after

competitive learning experiences. In general,

this detailed feedback aids students

in assessing their own abilities and forming

a realistic self-concept.

“Students should receive information

about their interpersonal

skills, and students

should receive a wide range of

data about their performance

relative to peers.”

7. Provide teachers with opportunities to

learn more about the special needs of

academically gifted adolescents. Any

teacher can benefit from specialized training

in new instructional strategies, and

those methods that are effective for instructing

gifted students can be beneficial

to many students. However, when gifted

students’ instructional needs are not met

in the classroom, whether in pullout programs

or summer residential programs,

students can suffer a variety of negative

affective consequences, including negative

impacts on academic self-concepts. A

highly trained teacher (with regard to differentiation)

is more likely to provide the

optimal level of challenge and support

that will encourage gifted students’ affective

and intellectual development.

Conclusion

The discussion of gifted students’

self-concept development should not focus

solely on academic self-concept. Selfconcept

researchers are widening their focus

to include self-concept in areas as diverse

as interpersonal relations and athletic

ability (e.g., Bain & Bell, 2004; Chanal,

Marsh, Sarrazin, & Bois, 2005; Rinn &

Wininger, 2007). Future research should

extend the application of the I/E model

and the BFLPE to address the influence of

academic self-concept on the development

of nonacademic dimensions, such as selfconcept

in peer relations, physical attractiveness,

and inter- and intra-personal relations,

as well as examine changes in the I/

E model and BFLPE across time. In the

meantime, these preceding recommendations

provide a good starting point for

practitioners interested in fostering their

gifted students’ academic self-concepts.

9

References

Bain, S. K., & Bell, S. M. (2004). Social selfconcept,

social attributions, and peer

relationships in fourth, fifth, and sixth

graders who are gifted compared to

high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly,

48, 167-178.

Betz, N., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship

of mathematical self-efficacy expectations

to the selection of sciencebased

college majors. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 23, 329-345.

Brounstein, P. J., Holahan, W., & Dreyden, J.

(1991). Change in self-concept and

attributional styles among academically

gifted adolescents. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 21, 198-

218.

Caslyn, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1977). Selfconcept

of ability and perceived

evaluation of others: Cause or effect

of academic achievement? Journal of

Educational Psychology, 69, 136-145.

Chanal, J. P., Marsh, H. W., Sarrazin, P. G., &

Bois, J. E. (2005). Big-fish-little-pond

effects on gymnastics self-concept:

Social comparison processes in a

physical setting. Journal of Sport &

Exercise Psychology, 27, 53-70.

Dai, D. Y., & Rinn, A. N. (2008). The bigfish-little-pond

effect: What do we

know and where do we go from here?

Educational Psychology Review, 20,

283-317.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth, and

crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social

comparison processes. Human Relations,

7, 117-148.

Gallagher, J., Harradine, C. C., & Coleman,

1. R. (1997). Challenge or

boredom? Gifted students’ views

on their schooling. Roeper Review,

19, 132-136.

Garg, R. (1992). Academic and nonacademic

self-concepts: Influence of

recent life-change experiences and

demographic, social, and health

variables. NACADA Journal, 13,

43-52.

Hamachek, D. (1995). Self-concept and

school achievement: Interaction

dynamics and a tool for assessing

the self-concept component. Journal

of Counseling and Development,

73, 419-425.

Harter, S. (1986). Processes underlying the

construction, maintenance, and enhancement

of the self-concept in

children. In J. Suls & A. G.

Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological

perspectives on the self (Vol. 3, pp.

137-181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Harter, S. (1992). The relationship between

perceived competence, affect,

and motivational orientation

within the classroom: Processes

and patterns of change. In A. K.

Boggiano & T. S. Pittman (Eds.),

Achievement and motivation: A

social-developmental perspective

(pp. 77-114). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

10

House, J. D. (2000). The effect of student involvement

on the development of academic

self-concept. Journal of Social

Psychology, 140, 261-263.

Hoge, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (1993). Exploring

the link between giftedness and

self-concept. Review of Educational

Research, 63, 449-465.

Kanevsky, L. & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce

or not to produce? Understanding

boredom and the honor in underachievement.

Roeper Review, 26, 20-

28.

Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math selfconcepts:

An internal/external frame of

reference model. American Educational

Research Journal, 23, 129-149.

Marsh, H. W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond

effect on academic self-concept. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 79,

280-295.

Marsh, H. W. (1991). The failure of high ability

schools to deliver academic benefits:

The importance of academic selfconcept

and educational aspirations.

American Educational Research

Journal, 28, 445-480.

Marsh, H. W., Chessor, D., Craven, R., &

Roche, L. (1995). The effects of gifted

and talented programs on academic

self-concept: The big fish strikes

again. American Educational Research

Journal, 32, 285-319.

Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. (2004). Explaining

paradoxical relations between academic

self-concepts and achievements:

Cross-cultural generalizability

of the internal/external

frame of reference predictions

across 26 countries. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 96, 56-

67.

Marsh, H. W., & Parker, J. W. (1984). Determinants

of student self-concept:

Is it better to be a relatively large

fish in a small pond even if you

don’t learn to swim as well? Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology,

47, 213-231.

Marsh, H. W., Parker, J. W., & Barnes, J.

(1985). Multidimensional adolescent

self-concepts: Their relationship

to age, sex, and academic

measures. American Educational

Research Journal, 22, 422-444.

Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. (1985).

Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical

structure. Educational

Psychologist, 20, 107-123.

Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O.,

Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2005).

Academic self-concept, interest,

grades, and standardized test

scores: Reciprocal effects models

of causal ordering. Child Development,

76, 397-416.

Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1998).

Longitudinal structural equation

models of academic self-concept

and achievement: Gender differences

in the development of math

and English constructs. American

Educational Research Journal, 35,

705-738.

11

Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillon, D.

1. (1994). Long-term effects of an

enrichment program based on the Purdue

Three-Stage Model. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 38, 38-48.

Mui, F. L. L., Yeung, A. S., Low, R., & Jin, P.

(2000). Academic self-concept of talented

students: Factor structure and

applicability of the internal/external

frame of reference model. Journal for

the Education of the Gifted, 23, 343-

367.

Plucker, J. A., & Gorman, M. E. (1995).

Group interaction during a summer

course on invention and design for

high ability secondary students. The

Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,

6, 258-272.

Plucker, J. A., & McIntire, J. (1996). Academic

survivability in high potential,

middle school students. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 40, 7-14.

Plucker, J. A., Robinson, N. M., Greenspon,

1. S., Feldhusen, J. F., McCoach, D.

B., & Subotnik, R. F. (2004). It’s not

how the pond makes you feel, but

rather how high you can jump. American

Psychologist, 59, 268-269.

Plucker, J. A., & Stocking, V. B. (2001).

Looking outside and inside: Selfconcept

development of gifted adolescents.

Exceptional Children, 67, 535-

548.

Plucker, J. A., & Stocking, V. B. (2002,

April). An extension of the I/E model

of self-concept to multiple contexts

and its implications for gifted students.

Paper presented at the annual

conference of the American

Educational Research Association,

New Orleans, LA.

Renzulli, J. S. (2005). Applying gifted

education pedagogy to total talent

development for all students. Theory

into Practice, 44, 80-89.

Rinn, A. N. (2007). Effects of programmatic

selectivity on the academic

achievement, academic selfconcepts,

and aspirations of gifted

college students. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 51, 232-245.

Rinn, A. N., McQueen, K. S, Clark, G., &

Rumsey, J. L. (2008). Gender differences

in gifted adolescents’

math/verbal self-concepts and

math/verbal achievement: Implications

for the STEM fields. Journal

for the Education of the Gifted, 32,

34-53.

Rinn, A. N., & Wininger, S. R. (2007).

Sports participation among academically

gifted adolescents: Relationship

to the multidimensional

self-concept. Journal for the Education

of the Gifted, 31, 35-56.

Ross, A., & Parker, M. (l980). Academic

and social self-concepts of the academically

gifted. Exceptional

Children, 47, 6-11.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1990).

Math, verbal, and general academic

self-concept: The internal/

external frame of reference model

and gender differences in self12

concept structure. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 82, 546-554.

Stocking, V. B. (1998). “What I did on my

vacation”: Summer options for gifted

students. NASSP Bulletin, 82, 93-100.

Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli J.

S., Purcell, J., Leppien, J., & Burns,

1. (2002, November). The Parallel

Curriculum: A design to develop high

potential and challenge high-ability

learners. Paper presented at the annual

conference of the National Association

for Gifted Children, St. Paul,

MN.

Tymms, P. (2001). A test of the big fish in a

little pond hypothesis: An investigation

into the feelings of seven-year-old

pupils in the school. School Effectiveness

and School Improvement, 12, 161-

181.

Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., Cooper, H.

(2004). The relation between selfbeliefs

and academic achievement: A

meta-analytic review. Educational

Psychologist, 39, 111-133.

Williams, J. E., & Montgomery, D. (1995).

Using frame of reference theory to

understand the self-concept of academically

able students. Journal for

the Education of the Gifted, 18, 400-

409.