Gifted students' learning gains result from complex, advanced, and meaningful content provided by a knowledgeable teacher through high-quality curriculum and instruction at an appropriate pace with scaffolding and feedback. These elements exert influence that increases with dosage and within structures that facilitate student engagement in rigorous experiences, including interactions with one another. Talent development is a two-part process. First, educators and parents must provide opportunities for talent to surface, and then they must recognize the talent and provide educational opportunities that engage the emerging talent and move it to exceptional levels. Unfortunately, a variety of barriers exist that limit underserved students' participation in this process. We discuss these barriers within a proposed model of talent development. Keywords academic achievement, underrepresentation, at risk, identification of gifted children, cultural differences Gifted and talented programs and services aim to promote, enhance, and extend the talents and abilities of students. Prior to such interventions, students' potential talents

Children with a specific learning disability in reading/writing (LDRW) and/or language impairment (LI) are likely to have difficulties across all areas of academic achievement, as a great deal of teaching and learning depends on intact reading skill and linguistic communication. Despite a large number of studies examining academic difficulties among these groups, there has been minimal research investigating types of errors made on tests of academic achievement. The present study compared academic error types of children with LDRW (Group 1) and children with LI (Group 3) to two distinct demographically matched control groups (Groups 2 and 4) using the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Third Edition (KTEA-3) error analysis system. Findings indicate that children in the LDRW group or LI group, on average, made a greater number of errors than their matched counterparts. Statistically significant differences, with moderate effect sizes, were found between examinees in the clinical groups and their respective matched control groups across several error categories. Some of the largest differences were found in the Written Expression and Oral Expression subtests. Most importantly, the patterns of errors made by LDRW and LI samples differed notably on the various tasks, providing new insights about these clinical samples.

The purpose of this study was to understand and compare the types of errors students with a specific learning disability in reading and/or writing (SLD-R/W) and those with a specific learning disability in math (SLD-M) made in the areas of reading, writing, language, and mathematics. Clinical samples were selected from the norming population of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Third Edition (KTEA-3) as well as matched controls. Although the authors expected to find overall differences between the groups in their area of difficulties, the study revealed that the two clinical samples were more similar than different. In particular, the SLD-M clinical group performed lower on some errors that were not related to their area of disability compared with the SLD-R/W group. Implications of the study show the importance of error analysis especially when creating goals for individual education plans. Although a student may have an SLD-R/W, he or she may still need support in certain mathematic areas, and vice versa.

No abstract

No abstract