Page 138 - GiftedEducationProgrammingStandards
P. 138
137 ÚHƒgƒŸG áÑ∏£dG ójó– ÚHƒgƒŸG á«HôJ ‘ º««≤àdG QÉ«©e :™HGôdG π°üØdG
Kurtz, B. E., & Weinert, F. E. (1989). Metacognition, memory performance, and
causal attributions in gifted and average children. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 48, 45–61.
Lee, S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2006). Comparison between talent search
students qualifying via scores on standardized tests and via parent nomination.
Roeper Review, 29, 157–166.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Louis, B., & Lewis, M. (1992). Parental beliefs about giftedness in young children
and their relation to actual ability level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 27–31.
Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., & Assouline, S. G. (1993). Identifying mathematically
talented elementary students: Using the lower level of the SSAT. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 37, 118–123.
Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem,
needed changes, and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41–50.
McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification
screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 17, 103–111.
McCoach, D. B., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Siegle, D. (2001). Best practices in
the identification of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in
the Schools, 38, 403–411.
Morris, J. E. (2002). African American students and gifted education. Roeper Review,
24, 59–53.
Morrison, W. F., & Rizza, M. G. (2007). Creating a toolkit for identifying twice-
exceptional students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 57–76.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 gifted
programming standards: A blueprint for quality gifted education programs.
Washington, DC: Author.
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. §6301 (2001).
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2000). The transition from childhood giftedness to adult
creative productiveness: Psychological characteristics and social supports.
Roeper Review, 23, 65–71.
