Academies of Inquiry and Talent Development at the Middle and High School Levels1
This article summarizes research on various aspects of the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model and research on eight categorical components of the model carried out over the past 20 years will be presented. These components include: the effectiveness of the model, creative productivity, personal and social development, unhabits, and perhaps most important, love of learning and desire to continue to pursue creative productive work in the future.
Identification of Gifted Students with Learning Disabilities in a Response-to-Intervention Era.
The identification of children who are twice-exceptional—those who are gifted and have concomitant learning disabilities (LDs)—has historically posed a number of challenges for school psychologists and other school personnel. With the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and the shift to the use of a Response-to-Intervention (RtI) model to identify students with LDs, the task of identifying those who are twice exceptional is even more daunting. This article proposes an integrated model for the identification of gifted children with LDs that blends standardized assessment methods with practices consistent with RtI. This balanced approach brings together the best of both worlds to more accurately identify twice-exceptional students and better meet their educational needs. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Gender Differences in Predicting Productivity of Faculty
Since the 1960s, the overall proportion of female faculty in higher education has increased significantly, from 20 percent in 1969 to 27 percent in 1984, although this improvement is not reflected in all disciplines (Ransom, 1990). In journalism, the percentage of women faculty rose from 10 percent in 1969 to 30 percent in 1984.' Despite these gains, the recent literature demonstrates that female faculty must still face a number of inequity issues (Hensel, 1990; Maitland, 1990; Moore & Sagaria, 1991). In the journalism and mass communication field, several studies have pointed out that female faculty members are less likely to be tenured (Fedler, Counts, & Smith, 1984; Grunig, 1987) and earn less than their male counterparts, controlling for such intervening variables as rank, years of teaching experience, and educational level (Stuart & Dickey, 1986; Weaver & Wilhoit, 1988; see also Fedler et al., 1984; Kelly, 1989; Stuart & Dickey, 1991). One should add, though, that this salary differential tends to be small after controls. Provided that some job inequalities persist between male and female faculty in schools and departments of journalism and mass communications, the next question we need to address is why? Research on academic women in U.S. universities has suggested that such a differential treatment occurs because female faculty tend to publish less than their male colleagues ( e g , Centra, 1974; Chamberlain, 1988; Fulton, 1975; Seeborg, 1990; Simeone, 1987). Some discipline-specific studies have also reported that male faculty members are significantly more productive than their female counterparts in education (e.g., Lipman-Blumen, Stivers, Tickamyer, & Brainard, 1975) and psychology (e.g., Bronstein, Black, Pfennig, & White, 1986; Guyer & Fidell, 1973). But again these differences are often small or tend to disappear when such controls as rank and academic experience are introduced. In journalism and mass communications, however, there is some evidence that female faculty are closing the publication gap. A growing number of content analyses have revealed a continuous increase in female authorship since the 1960s (Cooper, Stewart, & Friedley, 1985, 1990; Dupagne, Potter, Cooper, & Dashiell, 1991; Sharp, Turk, Einsiedel, Schamber, & Hollenback, 1985) . More recently, Dupagne, Potter, and Cooper (in press) have investigated authorship patterns by gender in eight leading communication journals from 1965 to 1989. They found