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.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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,
- 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.
- (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,
- 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,
- (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.
