Curriculum FAQ

What is the purpose of University School?
The purpose of University School is to provide a quality education for academically gifted students. The goal is for University School students, as they grow and develop, to become creative producers who will be assets to society.  Gifted education leader Joseph Renzulli (1985, 1992) contends that people who will be creative producers in society are those with above average intelligence (approximately 90th percentile and above on IQ testing), task commitment, and creativity. Therefore, we accept students who score at or above the 90th percentile on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, an IQ test known as the WISC. Thus our students come to us with at least one of the three necessary components to be a creative producer. At University School we work to develop and nurture all three components.

What is developmentally appropriate?
Bright children thrive on learning. They often immerse themselves in gaining knowledge for self-selected topics.  What is developmentally appropriate for most children may not be developmentally appropriate for gifted children.  Some of these children learn to read spontaneously and begin studying advanced material at an early age.  Others become passionately engrossed in a variety of individual subjects. Many exhibit advanced logic and verbal skills and learn quickly.  Obviously these are students with high potential for making a contribution to society in addition to becoming self-actualized persons.

What does the University School curriculum strive to do?
The University School curriculum endeavors to develop students who will be creative producers. To do this students must learn task commitment, a positive work ethic, and creative approaches. A total school curriculum for gifted students must develop the work ethic, teach basic skills, and provide creative and challenging educational tasks. University School provides a balanced curriculum that includes both convergent and divergent tasks. In other words, we provide some tasks that have one right answer and some tasks that have a variety of answers.

What does a balance between the basics and the creative mean?
One of the concepts upon which the University School curriculum is based is optimization (Runco, 1993). This is the curriculum balance that includes both convergent and divergent tasks.  Just as it is important for students to be able to problem solve and understand math concepts, it is important for them to know basic math facts.  Just as it is important that students can express their ideas and feelings in writing, it is important that they are able to write grammatically correct sentences and paragraphs.  This is not a case of either/or.  This is a case of needing both the basics and the creative in the curriculum.  This approach provides the undergirding of a good curriculum.

University School tries to strike a balance between covering the basics and pursuing creative endeavors. The basics refer to the skills that form the foundation of any particular subject. The basics are often convergent tasks with one right answer. For example, Kumon is considered a course of basic math skills and Shurley Grammar is considered a course of basic grammar skills.

Creative thinking involves divergent tasks which may have many answers. Divergent or open-ended tasks are used at University School to help gifted children develop talent and creative productivity.  Open-ended tasks help adjust the curriculum to meet individual needs.  Writing is a creative and productive way to individualize for students (Johnson, 1987; Breyman,1991).  A student’s own writing can become the reading, writing, spelling, and grammar material to teach those skills. Drawing and creating projects are other open-ended tasks.

Our teachers teach the basics and provide creative activities, teach basic math facts and problem solving, have students write with pencils as well as with computers, teach grammar and punctuation as well as creative writing, and reward hard work with fun.  An overemphasis of either the basics or the creative can be detrimental to students’ learning.  The golden mean, optimization, is the goal.

What is a unique feature of our school?
The feature that distinguishes us most from other schools is our low pupil-teacher ratio. From Early Childhood through Primary 3, we have a minimum of three teachers for 24 children.  Intermediate 1 and 2 students have two teachers for 24 students. Older Intermediate students also have low pupil teacher ratios.

What are the general qualifications for University School teachers?
All lead teachers at University School have college degrees. There is at least one lead teacher for each classroom. For assistant teachers, a college degree is desirable but not essential.

We look for teachers who understand the need for gifted students to develop task commitment and the ability to work hard. We want teachers who will make sure that basic skills for all academic subjects are taught. Additionally we expect that our teachers will provide intellectually challenging and creative tasks for students. We expect teachers to teach students to work hard, to cover basic skills, and to provide challenging and creative work.

What are the specific qualifications for University School teachers?

Older Intermediate Lead Teachers
College degree
Advanced degree preferred
Gifted education experience or course work preferred
Expertise and course work in subjects taught
2 or more years teaching experience
Good interpersonal and teamwork skills
Good classroom management skills
Good oral and written communication skills
Good classroom organizational skills

Primary 1 through Intermediate 2 Lead Teachers
College teaching degree, elementary emphasis preferred
Gifted education experience or course work preferred
2 or more years teaching experience
Good interpersonal and teamwork skills
Good classroom management skills
Good oral and written communication skills
Good classroom organizational skills

Early Childhood and Early Primary Lead Teachers
College degree, early childhood emphasis preferred
Gifted education experience or course work preferred
2 or more years teaching experience
Good interpersonal and teamwork skills
Good classroom management skills
Good oral and written communication skills
Good classroom organizational skills

Assistant Teachers
College degree preferred but not essential
Previous experience teaching preferred but not essential
Good interpersonal and teamwork skills
Good classroom management skills
Good classroom organizational skills

Why do University School administrators also teach?
The best way for anyone to know a child well is to have taught that child. One of the most important things about University School is that the school is small enough for each administrator to personally know the strengths and weaknesses of each child. Not many schools can know students that well.

When administrators are also classroom teachers, they can truly understand what each classroom teacher deals with each day. Even universities have seen the advantages of having administrators teach and are more commonly requiring it of their administrators. It is one thing to tell teachers how they should handle their duties and quite another to be able to show them.  When administrators thoroughly know all the students, thoroughly know how the various educational systems work for these specific children, they are then in a position to be the leaders they need to be.

What is the Enaction Curriculum? 
The Enaction Curriculum (Hollingsworth 1985, 1988) is a framework for teachers to use in all aspects of their teaching. The framework is designed to meet the special needs of able learners by developing their capacities for thinking and problem solving. This framework focuses on the use of active learning and challenging knowledge.  For example, the idea of searching for patterns in history is a rather advanced concept. When that concept is taught in an active kinesthetic way, such as our history chants, even young children begin to understand the concept. The Enaction Curriculum framework is to encourage teachers to find active and engaging way to teach ideas and concepts.

The Enaction Curriculum is based on Ohlsson’s (1983) theory and Glaser’s (1984) position on the importance of domain specific knowledge.  The Enaction Curriculum embraces an interdisciplinary, active learning approach that asserts that the highly complex activity of thinking and problem solving is facilitated by students’ interactive use of such things as models, diagrams, maps, drawings, and simulations (Ohlsson, 1983; Hollingsworth, 1988).

Enaction Theory says that thinking is like running a videotape through your head. The theory starts with developing a concept, which is what teachers are constantly trying to do.  The theory says that hands-on, active, and interactive methods are the best way to accomplish this, hence our focus on active learning.  A fledgling concept is incomplete, sometimes inaccurate, and rudimentary.  It needs development.

To help a concept become more complete and useful, it must be used in various ways.  For example, when a teacher wants students to develop a more complete concept of patterns of history, students might be shown a variety of examples of Egyptian art work and architecture. Then new vocabulary might be introduced. Next students might create their own Egyptian drawings. There might then be a group discussion of ways in which the ancient Egyptians are similar and different from us today.  The next step might be for students to work on a compare and contrast diagram. Each student’s mental video becomes more fully developed by using the concept in many ways.

The advanced stage of creating this mental video is when one can use the concept in problem solving (which may be academic, social, moral or practical problems).


  • I have learned about stiff Egyptian art. Can I compare and contrast that to art in the Middle Ages?
  • I have learned the concept and the skill of multiplication.  Can I now figure out if I can afford to
    take five of my friends to lunch?
  • I have learned about the lifestyle of the rich and famous ancient Romans.  Can I now compare and contrast them to the rich and famous of our time?
  • I have learned the concept and some of the skills of safe driving.  Can I now be a safe driver during rush hour?
  • I have learned about the concept of creative children. Can I now appreciate some of their unique approaches to learning?

The Enaction Curriculum provides a framework for teachers to use when planning instruction. It ensures that active learning and challenging curriculum elements will be involved. It helps to develop deep levels of thinking and problem solving strategies within students.

What is Active Learning? 
Brain research reported by Caine & Caine (1991) says that providing many, complex, and concrete experiences optimize learning.  The brain can make infinite connections that create meaningful, long-term learning.  These complex, interactive, life-like experiences help learners to be relaxed, but challenged and alert.  Experiences, such as projects, trips, performances, and stories, make learning more enjoyable, meaningful, and long-lasting.

Howard Gardner’s (1983) work on multiple intelligences has encouraged a wide variety of active ways to stimulate and nurture intelligences (Lazear, 1991; Hollingsworth & Hollingsworth, 1989).  All of these sources encourage the use of integrated, experiential learning in which the learner is actively engaged in constructing knowledge.  In response to theory and research a variety of strategies, such as active learning (Harmin, 1994; Marzano, 1992), kinesthetic learning (Herman and Hollingsworth, 1992), and hands-on learning, seek to involve and engage students in a meaningful way.  These may include an assortment of physical and mental activities such as drama, storytelling, creative writing, art, dance, computer-usage, movement, simulations, discovery activities, developing thinking skills, and independent research (Caine and Caine, 1991; Lazear, 1991; Renzulli, 1985; Harmin, 1994).

What are recommended curriculum elements for gifted students?
University School provides a variety of opportunities for students to conduct in-depth research into their own interests, to learn from a multiple discipline perspective, to develop productive thinking skills, and to use musical, dramatic and artistic talents. These aspects of the University School curriculum come directly recommended in gifted literature. Experts in gifted education advocate the following as appropriate curriculum elements for gifted education (Ganapole, 1989):

1. Interdisciplinary Approach to Learning –  Caine and Caine (1991) found that learning was facilitated when connections are made among subjects, themes, the learners’ lives, and the world.  Similarly Barbara Clark (1983) found that an integrative curriculum was a way to optimize learning. Other writers have voiced similar beliefs in the benefits of integrating knowledge.  Collins (1991) wrote about the need to integrate visual and verbal thinking.

Interdisciplinary learning helps bright students make connections between and among the various discrete chunks of knowledge they are devouring.  An integrated, interdisciplinary curriculum encourages a variety of innovative strategies and provides some direction regarding curricular options. Ganapole’s (1989) framework for designing an integrated curriculum is most useful in developing University School curriculum.  It involves identifying a theme based on the criteria of content richness and significance, using the webbing process to identify issues, topics, and problems, and the categorization of problems and questions into appropriate disciplines.

2. Independent Investigations – Renzulli’s (1992) theory emphasized that creative productivity occurs when students are given the opportunity to study subjects in which they are intensely interested.  Many gifted children have keen interests that they pursue relentlessly.  Teachers can learn to capitalize on these interests by providing opportunities for independent investigations (Renzulli & Reis, 1985).  The motivation to learn to conduct research and develop study skills grows with the interest in the subject. Students can learn to conduct investigations as if they were professionals in the field. These in-depth studies are an ideal way to learn study skills and how to conduct research.

3. Higher Order Thinking Skills – The Talents Unlimited (Schlicher, 1981) model teaches higher order thinking skills within academic content.  University School students learn to use productive thinking, planning, communication, decision making, and forecasting all within classroom content.  They can then in turn use those talents in independent investigations or in daily life problem solving situations.

4. Music, Drama, and Art – The arts have been a recommended aspect of curriculum for the gifted since the 1972 Marland report, yet the arts are often lacking in the differential education of the gifted (Shore, et al., 1991).  Seeley (1989), in support of including the arts in gifted programs says that art…”heightens sensitivity and creative ability.  It provides emotional outlets and a medium for expression that words and numbers cannot.” (p.302).

What are examples of University School curriculum integration?
Each year students at the University School at The University of Tulsa present original plays at the Winter Drama Festival.   The plays are usually a class or small group project in which students conduct research, write, and produce the plays under the guidance of a teacher.  The Winter Drama Festival has a  wide appeal to both teachers and students.  The Drama Festival provides an excellent vehicle for students’ to use their creativity.  This event ensures that students have opportunities for multidisciplinary study and integration of subject matter.

Creative Producers International is a one-day celebration of global diversity and creativity sponsored by University School. Both students and adults exhibit their creative products while activities encourage participants to interact with the exhibitors.  This festival has been a successful way to provide students with an audience for their products.  This convention focuses on students’ and adults’ creative products.  Teachers would encourage students to do in-depth research in an area of their interest and create related products to share with other students and adults from around the state and region.

How is task commitment developed?
In addition to loving to learn, bright students also can be resistant to bringing projects to closure, not willing to work hard, and disorganized.  These are skills that can be taught.  School should be a place where students are academic challenged, work hard, and learn responsibility.  One of the most important things that University School does is teach the connection between effort and outcome.  Our teachers directly tie rewards and consequences to the effort.  Often bright students get by with little work or effort and consequently do not learn the connection between effort and positive outcomes.  Without hard work and effort there is little basis for self-esteem no matter how bright a person is.

How are organizational skills taught?
Many gifted children need to be overtly taught how to be organized.  Students need to be taught how to keep an assignment notebook and folder.  At University School we often have “backpack and locker dumps.”  This is a time to take out everything from the locker or backpack and reorganize it.  Organization is not something that all children know intuitively.  In fact, gifted children sometimes seem to need more help with this than others.  Disorganization becomes an excuse with teachers hearing “I know I did that homework, I just can’t find it.” University School students learn to use an assignment notebook, how to be responsible for turning work in on time.

How is the curriculum evaluated?
University School has always believed that evaluation of curriculum is an important, continuous on-going process which is necessary for the justification and improvement of any program (Callahan, 1983). We have carefully and methodically developed a solid curriculum for gifted students. At every convention we listen to sessions on current educational research and practices. At every convention, we peruse the latest curriculum materials. We visit other schools, we talk with teachers, we read the research. National educational journals and magazine are likewise examined for the best possible materials and methods. We examine this information in light of the our years of experience teaching gifted children. Every curricular decision is made with great thought and care with the goal to provide our students with the best possible education.

Evaluation includes both summative and formative evaluation (Stufflebeam 1981). University School uses a variety of evaluation activities and processes to clarify, obtain, and provide useful information for judging decision alternatives. University School evaluation activities are classified into formative or summative evaluation. Activities include quantitative methods, as well as qualitative procedures.

Triangulation is a method used in the University School evaluation process. Triangulation means that information is solicited from a variety of sources and stakeholders. By gathering feedback from many sources, one is more likely to get a clear picture of the level of effectiveness of a program

What is formative evaluation and how does it occur?
Formative evaluation is the information that helps to shape and form the curriculum. It is the on-going, daily feedback that informs, strengthens, and molds the curriculum. Formative evaluation occurs continually between teachers and students, between teachers and administrators, and among teachers themselves. Our goal is to constantly monitor and improve the curriculum. There are many ways in which this is done.

1. Teacher evaluation of students
Formative evaluation occurs daily. Each teacher has a well defined set of goals and objectives for each class.  Teachers individually and collectively evaluate how well students are meeting the curriculum goals. The formative stage of evaluation includes classroom discussions, checklists, informal personal interviews, and observations. Teachers provide corrective feedback to students daily.

2. Administrator evaluation of teachers
Teachers and administrators consult continually about the progress of individual students as well as group progress. Administrators are in classrooms on a daily basis for observation of teacher and student interactions, classroom climate, patterns of behavior, presentation of concepts and content, use of active learning, and methods of assessment.

3. Teacher evaluation of class progress and subject level progress
Teams of teachers work together to evaluate the progress of the class, determine new strategies, and plan implementation. To insure appropriate layering of learning, teachers from various grade levels meet, such as all the Kumon teachers, the language arts teachers, or the social studies teachers.

4. Teacher and administrator professional memberships
Professional memberships provide books and journals with the most current thinking in the field of education. Members of our staff belong to National Association for Gifted Children, Oklahoma Association for Gifted, Creative, and Talented, and Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development which provide us with continuous feedback regarding current thinking in our field.

5. Teacher and administrator staff development
The week prior to school is devoted to staff development activities designed to evaluate and improve all aspects of the school curriculum. The material covered in this week of staff development is taken from the graduate level courses in curriculum development that Dr. Hollingsworth teaches for The University of Tulsa. Additionally each year University School staff members attend state and national professional organization meetings. Staff development training has included sessions with the following well-known educators: Barbara Clark, Sylvia Rimm, Joan Smutny, Sally Reis, Gail Herman, George Betts, Arlene DeVries, Jim Fay, Foster Cline, Stephen Glenn, Jim Gallagher, Jane Piirto, Jim Delisle, Virginia Morse, Cindy Nottage, and many others.

What is summative evaluation and how does it occur?
Summative evaluation is an assessment or measure of effectiveness at the end of a time period. Any activities that show evidences of effectiveness may be included. Report cards, standardized testing, parent surveys, and formal evaluations are examples. Summative evaluation activities also determine the effectiveness of the program in terms of outcomes. Evidence of program effectiveness can be gathered from standardized testing, Duke Talent Search, academic contests, previous Javits evaluations, and former student evaluations.

1. Teachers evaluation of students
One aspect is individual assessment. Teachers assess whether or not, or to what extent, individual students meet objectives.  This information is conveyed to parents by individual conferences and through report cards. This assessment is determined by testing, and by portfolio-type evidence, such as projects and papers.

2. Standardized testing
Each spring, students from Primary I through Older Intermediate 2 are given the Stanford Achievement Test. Standardized testing is one quantitative method of evaluating student achievement and documenting outcomes over time.

3. Duke Talent Search
Sixth grade students who score in the 97% or above on a major subtest of an achievement test are invited to take the ACT or SAT that high schoolers take for college entrance applications. Middle school students who make outstanding scores on the ACT or SAT are honored at an award ceremony and are eligible to take special summer courses for a fee. Individual scores are returned to the University School administration and records are kept.

4. Academic contests
Another method of evaluating the University School curriculum is to look at the large percentage of our students who rank highly in academic contests. The contests in which our students have done well include The National Geography Bee, the County Spelling Bee, Computer Challenge, local and national writing contests, state and national Math Counts contests, the Sim City contest, and Academic Bowl. Alumni have also done well in high school academic arenas such as the National Spanish Test, Academic Bowl, the National Science Fair, and the National Merit Scholarship exam.

5. Alumni feedback
University School attempts to keep in touch with alumni on a reular basis, and we request their input about the education and experience that University School provided them.

6. University of Tulsa’s formal evaluation of lead teachers
All lead teachers have an annual formal evaluation conducted by the director of the school. The evaluations process, dates, and forms are determined by The University of Tulsa.

7. University School’s evaluation of all teachers
In addition to the university’s evaluation, all teachers are subject to a University School evaluation. This evaluation concerns four domains of teacher responsibility (Danielson, 1996): planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities.

Additional Curriculum Credentials

Outstanding Faculty Awards
Our faculty has been honored in many ways. Most recently Ms Marilyn Howard was selected by the Mathematical Association of America as the outstanding middle school math teacher of the year. Both Ms Katie Abercrombie and Dr. Pat Hollingsworth were selected for Who’s Who Among America’s Teachers. Dr. Hollingsworth also was selected as a consultant for the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, selected for the Directory of International Biography, received the Oklahoma Association for Gifted, Creative, and Talented Service Award, elected to serve nine years on the National Association for Gifted Children Board of Directors, and wrote, was awarded, and directed two United States Department of Education grants to train teachers to use the University School curriculum. Dr. Hollingsworth is also on the boards of Roeper Review journal and Understanding Our Gifted magazine.

Close working relationship with TU’s Department of Education
For many years, TU’s Department of Education has used University School as a site for both undergraduate and graduate students to observe, to serve practicums, and to do internships. Many University School faculty members have given gifted education lectures to university classes. We also have worked closely with the education faculty on grant writing, committees, and national professional organizations.

National interest in and publication of University School curriculum
The University School curriculum has received national attention in numerous articles written about the various aspects of the curriculum. The curriculum guide has been selected for the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) data base sponsored by the U. S. Department of Education, as has been an article on the research foundations of University School curriculum, and the final report of our first Javits grant. The SAILS books, which fully describe in detail curricular activities at University School, have been very well received nationally. Below is a partial list of publications about aspects of our curriculum:

  • Hollingsworth, P. L. (1993). Making it through parenting. In Thomas W. Roberts (Ed.) A Systems Perspective of Parenting. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
  • Hollingsworth, P. L. (1998). The world of the young gifted child viewed through open systems concepts. In Joan F. Smutny (Ed.) The Young Gifted Child: Potential and Promise, an Anthology. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  • Hollingsworth, P. L. (1998). SAILS Series: Classical Greece, Ancient Rome, Renaissance, Baroque & Rococo, Neoclassicism, Romanticism. Tulsa, OK: University School Press.
  • Hollingsworth, P.L. (1999). SAILS Series: Ancient Egypt. Tulsa, OK: University School Press.
  • Hollingsworth, P. L. (1999). Staff selection and development. In Eileen Kelble (Ed) So You Want to Start a Gifted School. Washington, D. C.: NAGC.
  • Hollingsworth, P.L. (2000). SAILS Series: Middle Ages. Tulsa, OK: University School Press.
  • Hollingsworth, P. L. (in press a). Rural gifted students: Isolated and alone? In Joan F. Smutny (Ed.) The Underserved Gifted. Cresskill: NJ: Hampton Press.
  • Hollingsworth, P. L. (in press b). The ecosystem of giftedness and creativity. In Don Ambrose and Leonora M. Cohen (Eds.) Creative Intelligence: Toward Theoretic Integration. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.


  • Hollingsworth, P. L. (1985). Enaction theory, simulations, and the gifted. Roeper Review, 8(2), 93-95.
  • Hollingsworth, P. L. (1988). Enaction theory: A theoretical validation of the Enrichment Triad Model. Roeper Review, 10(4), 222-225.
  • Hollingsworth, P. L. (1993). Center for Arts and Sciences.Gifted Child Today, 16(5), 6-8.
  • Hollingsworth, P. L. (1995). Educationally correct math and the Kumon method. Illinois Association for Gifted Children Journal, article 13.
  • Hollingsworth, P. L., Johnson, Dale, and Smith, Susan (1998). An evaluation study of interdisciplinary active learning. Roeper Review, 20(4), 273-276.
  • Hollingsworth, P. L. (1998). The art museum treasure hunt. Parenting for High Potential. December, 7, 11, 31.
  • Hollingsworth, P. L. (1999). Young children SAIL far. Communicator, the California Association for the Gifted, 30(4), 16-17, 48-49.


  • Breyman, J. (1991). The teacher of writing at the University of Tulsa School for Gifted Children. Network News Quarterly, 6 (1), 2-5.
  • Caine, R. and Caine, G. (1991). Making connections:  Teaching and the human brain. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
  • Callahan, C. (1983). Issues in evaluating programs for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27  (1).
  • Clark, B. (1983). Growing up gifted. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
  • Danielson, C. (1996), Enhancing professional practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  • Ganapole, S. (1989). Designing an integrated curriculum for gifted learners: an organizational framework. Roeper Review 12 (2), 81 – 86.
  • Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic  Books.
  • Glaser, R. (1984).Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist,39  (2), 93-104.
  • Harmin, M. (1994). Inspiring active learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Herman, G. N., and Hollingsworth, P. L. (1992). Kinetic kaleidoscope. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr  Press.
  • Hollingsworth, P. L. (1985). Enaction theory, simulations, and the gifted. Roeper Review, 8 (2), 93-95.
  • Hollingsworth, P. L. (1988). Enaction theory: A theoretical validation of the enrichment triad model. Roeper Review, 10 (4), 222-225.
  • Hollingsworth, P. L. and Hollingsworth, S. F. (1989). Smart art. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press.
  • Johnson, K. (1987). Doing words. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Lazear, D. (1991). Seven ways of teaching. Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishing.
  • Marzano, R. (1992). A different kind of classroom:  Teaching the dimensions of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Ohlsson, S. (1983). The enaction theory of thinking and its educational implications. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 27 (2), 73-88.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity through the pursuit of ideal act of learning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35 (4), 170-182.
  • Renzulli, J. & Reis, S. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Runco, M. (1993). Moral creativity: Intentional and unconventional. Creativity Research Journal, 6, 17-28.
  • Schlichter, C. (1981). The multiple talent model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. Exceptional Children, October, 144-150.
  • Seeley, K. (1989). Arts curriculum for the gifted.  In J. VanTassel-Baska, J. F. Feldhusen, K.  Seeley, G. Wheatley, L.
  • Silverman, & W. Foster (Eds.) Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Shore, B., Cornell, D., Robinson, A., Ward, V. (1991). Recommended Practices in Gifted Education. NY:Teachers College Press.
  • Stufflebeam, D. (1981). Philosophical, conceptual, and practical guides for evaluating education. In W. L. Marks & R. O. Nystrand (Eds.), Strategies for educational  change (pp. 285-315).