Roeper Review 2004 - 2005: Vol 27 Index

0.29 MB·English

Index, Volume 27, Nos. 1-4
An Evolving Field Expanding Our Conceptual Horizons
Chan, D. W. Multiple intelligences of Chinese gifted students in Hong Ambrose, D. Interdisciplinary expansion of conceptual foundations:
Kong: Perspectives from students, parents, teachers, and peers. 27(1), Insights from beyond our field. 27(3), 137-143.
18-24. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. Bridging generality and specificity: The
Coleman, L. J. Is consensus on a definition in the field possible, desirable, Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity. 27(3), 158-
necessary? 27(1), 10-11. 163.
Cramond, B. Can we, should we, need we agree on a definition of gifted- Dai, D. Y. Reductionism versus emergentism: A framework for under-
ness? 27(1), 15-16. standing conceptions of giftedness. 27(3), 144-151.
Gagné, F. An imperative, but, alas, improbable consensus! 27(1), 12-14. Hoh, P-S. The linguistic advantage of the intellectually gifted child: An
Gallagher, J. J. On being a survivor. 27(1), 17. empirical study of spontaneous speech. 27(3), 178-185.
Gallagher, J. J. The role of race in gifted education. 27(3), 135. Miller, E. M. Studying the meaning of giftedness: Inspiration from the
Henshon, S. E. Looking ahead in the field of gifted education: An inter- field of cognitive psychology. 27(3), 172-177.
view with Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska. 27(3), 133-134. Reynolds, F. C., & Piirto, J. Depth psychology and giftedness: Bringing
Henshon, S. E. Reflections on an evolving view of giftedness and talent: soul to the field of talent development and giftedness. 27(3), 164-171.
An interview with Rena Subotnik. 27(4), 197-199. Schultz, R. A. Philosophical sense: An ampliative twist in gifted educa-
Subotnik, R. F. Recollections of a life of service to our field: Dr. John J. tion. 27(3), 152-157.
Feldhusen. 27(1), 5-9.
Recent Dissertation Research in Gifted Studies
On Gifted Students in School Blanchfield, S. L. K. (2002). The structure of the relaticnship between
Ford, D. Y., Moore, J. L., Milner, R. H. Beyond culturebliindness: A fathers and their gifted daughters that is supportive of giftedness: A
model of culture with implications for gifted education. 27(2), 97-103. grounded theory. 27(2), 121.
Mann, R. L. Gifted students with spatial strengths and sequential weak- Chamberlin, S. (2002). Analysis of interest during and after model-elicit-
nesses: An overlooked and underidentified population. 27(2). 91-96. ing activities: A comparison of gifted and general population students.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. & Lee, S-Y. How schools use talent search scores 27(4), 241.
for gifted adolescents. 27(4), 233-240. Chin, C. S. (2004). Social support for adolescents’ artistic activities.
Reis, S. M., Colbert, R. D., & Hébert, T. P. Understanding resilience in 27(1), 59.
diverse, talented students in an urban high school. 27(2), 110-120. Christopher, M. M. (2003). Perceptions of the university honors college
Swiatek, M. A. Gifted students’ self-perceptions of ability in specific sub- by gifted university students: A case study. 27(2), 121.
ject domains: Factor structure and relationship with above-level test Feuerbacher, S. A. (2004). An examination of enrichment program partic-
scores. 27(2). 104-109. ipation: A cross-case study comparison. 27(3), 186.
Jolly, J. L. (2004). A conceptual history of gifted education: 1910-1940.
27(4), 241.
Parents of Gifted Children
Kim, K. H. (2004). Cultural influence on creativity: The relationship
Huff, R. E., Houskamp, B. M., Watkins, A. V., Stanton, M., & Tevagia,
between creativity and Confucianism. 27(3), 186.
B. The experiences of parents of gifted African American children: A
Lee, M-S. (2004). Acculturative experiences of Korean Americans:
phenomenological study. 27(4), 215-221.
Exploring self- concept, learning style, and the identification of gifted-
ness at the microlevel and the macrolevel contexts. 27(2), 121.
Gifted Legislation Linn-Cohen, R. (2003). Unlocking the GATE: A qualitative study of two
Zirkel, P. A. State laws for gifted education: An overview of the legisla- self-contained gifted classes. 27(3), 186.
tion and regulations. 27(4), 228-232. Rinn, A. N. (2004). Effects of perceived programmatic selectivity on the
academic achievement, academic self-concepts, and aspirations of gift-
ed college students. 27(1), 59.
Social and Emotional Development
Edmunds, A. L., & Edmunds, G. A. Sensitivity: A double-edged sword
for the pre-adolescent and adolescent gifted child. 27(2), 69-77. Book Reviews
Gardynik, U. M., & McDonald, L. Implications of risk and resilience in Moshman, D. (1999). Adolescent psychological development: Rationality,
the life of the individual who is gifted/learning disabled. 27(4), 206- morality and identity. 27(3), 187-188.
214. Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. 27(2), 123.
Kitano, M. K., & Lewis, R. B. Resilience and coping: Implications for Piirto, J. (2002). “My teeming brain”: Understanding creative writers.
gifted children and youth at risk. 27(4), 200-205. 27(4), 242.
Woitaszewski, S. A., & Aalsma, M. C. The contribution of emotional Stout, M. (2000). The feel-good curriclum: The dumbing down of Ameri-
intelligence to the social and academic success of gifted adolescents as ca’s kids in the name of self-esteem. 27(2), 122.
measured by the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale — Adoles- VanTassel-Baska, J., & Little, C. A. (2003). Content-Based curriculum
cent Version. 27(1), 25-30. for high-ability learners. 27(1), 60.
On Teaching Gifted Students Book Reviewers
Feng, A. X., VanTassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., Bai, W., O'Neill, B. A longi- Gagné, F. 27(2), 122.
tudinal assessment of gifted students’ learning using the Integrated Hohlfeld, T. 27(3), 187-188.
Curriculum Model (ICM): Impacts and perceptions of the William and Matthews, D. 27(1), 60.
Mary language arts and science curriculum. 27(2), 78-83. McGlonn-Nelson, K. 27(2), 123.
McBee, M. T. The classroom as laboratory: An exploration of teacher Montgomery, D. 27(4), 242.
research. 27(1), 52-58.
McKenna, M. A., Hollingsworth, P. A., & Barnes, L. L. B. Developing
latent mathematics abilities in economically disadvantaged students.
27(4), 222-227.
Newman, J. L. Talents and type IIs: The effects of the Talents Unlimited
model on creative productivity in gifted youngsters. 27(2), 84-90.
Stamps, L. S. The effectiveness of curriculum compacting in first grade
classrooms. 27(1), 31-41.
Taylor, G., & Nikolova, O. Influence of gender and academic ability in a
computer-based Spanish reading task. 27(1), 42-51
Summer, 2005, Roeper Review/245