Vygotskian scaffolding techniques as motivational pedagogy for gifted mathematicians in further education: a diary-interview study

References

• Abtahi, Y. 2017. “The “More Knowledgeable Other”: A Necessity in the Zone of Proximal Development?” For the Learning of Mathematics 31 (1): 35.
   Google Scholar
• Abtahi, Y. 2018. “Vygotsky: A Learning Theory or A Theory of Development?” For the Learning of Mathematics 38 (1): 23–24.
   Google Scholar
• Adu, P. 2019. A Step-By-Step Guide to Qualitative Data Coding. 1st ed. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Agaliotis, I., and E. Kalyva. 2019. “Motivational Differences of Greek Gifted and Non-Gifted High-Achieving and Gifted Under-Achieving Students.” International Education Studies 12 (2): 45–56. doi:10.5539/ies.v12n2p45.
   Google Scholar
• Alderson, P., and V. Morrow. 2020. The Ethics of Research with Children and Young People: A Practical Handbook. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications .
   Google Scholar
• Archer, J. 2022. What Are the Differences between a Further Education College and a Sixth Form? Make Happen. Accessed 19 July 2022. https://www.makehappen.org/guide/what-are-the-differences-between-a-further-education-college-and-a-sixth-form/
   Google Scholar
• Association of Colleges, (AoC). 2022. AoC College Key Facts 20121/22. Accessed 11 July 2022. https://d4hfzltwt4wv7.cloudfront.net/uploads/files/AoC-College-Key-Facts-2021-22.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Avhustiuk, M. M., I. D. Pasichnyk, and R. V. Kalamazh. 2018. “The Illusion of Knowing in Metacognitive Monitoring: Effects of the Type of Information and of Personal, Cognitive, Metacognitive, and Individual Psychological Characteristics.” Europe’s Journal of Psychology 14 (2): 317–341. doi:10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1418.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartlett, R., and C. Milligan. 2020. Diary Method: Research Methods. London: Bloomsbury Publishing (Bloomsbury Research Methods).
   Google Scholar
• Beck, C. T. 2020. Introduction to Phenomenology: Focus on Methodology. London: SAGE Publications .
   Google Scholar
• Bell, J., and S. Waters. 2018. Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers. 7th ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett-Rappell, H., and M. T. Northcore. 2016. “Underachieving Gifted Students: Two Case Studies.” Issues in Educational Research 26 (3): 407–430.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, B. O., D. Lubinski, and C. P. Benbow. 2020. “Academic Acceleration in Gifted Youth and Fruitless Concerns regarding Psychological Well-Being: A 35-Year Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Educational Psychology, Online Pub. doi:10.1037/edu0000500.
   Google Scholar
• Blaikie, N. W. H., and J. Priest. 2019. Designing Social Research: The Logic of Anticipation. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Bogoyavlenskaya, D. B. 2018. “A Longitudinal Study of the Dynamics of Giftedness”. Russian Psychological Journal 15 (2/1): 5–18. doi:10.21702/rpj.2018.2.1.1.
   Google Scholar
• Bolton, G., and R. Delderfield. 2018. Reflective Practice: Writing and Professional Development. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Boyle, S. 2017. ‘Use of the Diary-Interview Method to Explore Women’s Relationships with Midwives during Childbirth’ in SAGE Research Methods Cases. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi:10.4135/9781526403476.
   Google Scholar
• British Educational Research Association, (BERA). 2018. Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. Accessed 14 November 2019. https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-for-Educational-Research_4thEdn_2018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brown, C., and J. Dixon. 2020. ““Push on Through”: Children’s Perspectives on the Narratives of Resilience in Schools Identified for Intensive Mental Health Promotion.” British Educational Research Journal 46 (2): 379–398. doi:10.1002/berj.3583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busch, B., and E. C. Watson. 2021. The Science of Learning: 99 Studies that Every Teacher Needs to Know. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cambridge Assessment, (CA). 2020. STEP Specification 2021. Accessed 30 April 2021. https://www.admissionstesting.org/Images/47831-step-specification-2021.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cao, X., and E. F. Henderson. 2020. “The Interweaving of Diaries and Lives: Diary-Keeping Behaviour in a Diary-Interview Study of International Students’ Employability Management.” Qualitative Research, Online Pub. doi:10.1177/1468794120920260.
   Google Scholar
• De Loof, H., A. Struyf, J. Boeve-de Pauw, and P. Van Petegem. 2019. “Teachers’ Motivating Style and Students’ Motivation and Engagement in STEM: The Relationship between Three Key Educational Concepts”. Research in Science Education (ASERA) 51 (1): 109–127. doi:10.1007/s11165-019-9830-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denscombe, M. 2017. The Good Research Guide For Small Scale Research Projects. 6th ed. London: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education and Employment, (DfEE). 1999. ‘Excellence In Cities: Raising Standards’. Nottingham: DfEE.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education, (DfE). 2021. How to Apply to Set up a Maths School for 16 to 19 Year Olds. Accessed 3 March 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-open-a-maths-school/how-to-apply-to-set-up-a-maths-school-for-16-to-19-year-olds#annex-a-criteria-for-maths-schools
   Google Scholar
• Dobson, R. 2019. ““Insiderness”, “Involvement” and Emotions: Impacts for Methods, “Knowledge” and Social Research.” People, Place & Policy Online. Sheffield Hallam University 3 (3): 183–195. doi:10.3351/ppp.0003.0003.0005.
   Google Scholar
• Dowling, R., K. Lloyd, and S. Suchet-Pearson. 2015. “Qualitative Methods 1: Enriching the Interview.” Progress in Human Geography 40 (5): 679–686. doi:10.1177/0309132515596880.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eberle, T. S. 2018. “Collecting Images As Data.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, edited by U. Flick, 392–411. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Education and Skills Funding Agency, (ESFA). 2020. Funding Guidance for Young People 2020 to 2021. Accessed 4 December 2020. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/934846/16_to_19_funding_guidance_Regulations_2020_to_2021-Version_1.2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ericsson, K. A., and R. Pool. 2016. Peak: How To Master Almost Anything. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Eun, B. 2019. “The Zone of Proximal Development as an Overarching Concept: A Framework for Synthesizing Vygotsky’s Theories.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 51 (1): 18–30. doi:10.1080/00131857.2017.1421941.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, C. M., and S. Serpa. 2018. “Informed Consent in Social Sciences Research: Ethical Challenges.” International Journal of Social Science Studies 6 (5): 13. doi:10.11114/ijsss.v6i5.3106.
   Google Scholar
• Fetterman, D. M. 1988. Excellent and Equality. A Qualitatively Different Perspective on Gifted and Talented Education. 1st ed. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Filep, C. V., S. Turner, N. Eidse, M. Thompson-Fawcett, and S. Fitzsimons. 2017. “Advancing Rigour in Solicited Diary Research”. Qualitative Research 18 (4): 451–470. doi:10.1177/1468794117728411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forster, M. 2019. ““Ethnographic” Thematic Phenomenography.” Journal of Documentation 75 (2): 349–365. doi:10.1108/JD-05-2018-0079.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, J. 2012. “A Quality of Gitftedness.” Gifted and Talented International 27 (2): 13–71. doi:10.1080/15332276.2012.11673627.
   Google Scholar
• Global Metacognition Institute, (GMI). 2019. Metacognition & Mathematics: Metacognitive Strategies for the Maths Classroom. Accessed 9 May 2021. https://www.globalmetacognition.com/post/metacognition-in-mathematics-metacognitive-strategies-for-the-maths-classroom
   Google Scholar
• Gorup, M. 2020. “Ethics of Observational Research.” In Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity, edited by R. Iphofen, 475–491. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2_20.
   Google Scholar
• Government Digital Service, (GDS). 2022. “Entries and Results - A Level and AS by Subject and Student Characteristics (Single Academic Year)’ from ‘A Level and Other 16 to 18 Results”.
   Google Scholar
• Grégoire, J. 2016. “Understanding Creativity in Mathematics for Improving Mathematical Education.” Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology New York: Springer Publishing Company 15 (1): 24–36. 10.1891/1945-8959.15.1.24.
   Google Scholar
• Groothuijsen, S. E. A., L. H. Bronkhorst, G. T. Prins, and W. Kuiper. 2020. “Teacher-Researchers’ Quality Concerns for Practice-Oriented Educational Research.” Research Papers in Education 35 (6): 766–787. doi:10.1080/02671522.2019.1633558.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyollai, D. 2019. “Getting into It in the Wrong Way: Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and the Hermeneutic Circle.” Nursing Philosophy John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 21 (2): e12294. 10.1111/nup.12294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajar, A. 2020. “Theoretical Foundations of Phenomenography: A Critical Review.” Higher Education Research & Development 40 (7): 1421–1436. doi:10.1080/07294360.2020.1833844.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayashi, P, G. Abib, and N. Hoppen. 2019. “Validity in Qualitative Research: A Processual Approach.” The Qualitative Report 24 (1): 98–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holahan, C. K. 2020. “Achievement across the Life Span: Perspectives from the Terman Study of the Gifted.” Gifted Child Quarterly 65 (1). doi:10.1177/0016986220934401.
   Google Scholar
• Huttunen, R., and L. Kakkori. 2020. “Heidegger’s Theory of Truth and Its Importance for the Quality of Qualitative Research.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 54 (3): 600–616. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyers, L. L., and J. Salmons. 2018. Diary Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ibarra, P. R., and M. Adorjan. 2018. “Social Constructionism.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Social Problems, edited by A. Javier Treviño, 279–302. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Janssens, K. A. M., E. H. Bos, J. G. M. Rosmalen, M. C. Wichers, and H. Riese. 2018. “A Qualitative Approach to Guide Choices for Designing A Diary Study.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 18 (1). doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0579-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johansson, H., and M. Österholm. 2019. “Objectification of Upper-Secondary Teachers’ Verbal Discourse in Relation to Symbolic Expressions.” The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 56: 100722. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2019.100722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. L., C. Walther, and K. J. Medley. 2018. “Perceptions of Advisors Who Work with High-Achieving Students.” Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council 19 (1): 105–124.
   Google Scholar
• Kara, H., N. Lemon, D. Mannay, and M. McPherson. 2021. Creative Research Methods in Education: Principles and Practice. 1st ed. Bristol: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Khong, T. D. H., E. Saito, and R. M. Gillies. 2019. “Key Issues in Productive Classroom Talk and Interventions.” Educational Review 71 (3): 334–349. doi:10.1080/00131911.2017.1410105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, N. J., B. R. Belland, and D. Axelrod. 2018. “Scaffolding for Optimal Challenge in K–12 Problem-Based Learning.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 13 (1): Article 3. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1712.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, N., C. Horrocks, and J. Brooks. 2019. Interviews in Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications .
   Google Scholar
• Leikin, R. 2020. “Gifted and High Ability in Mathematics.” In Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education, edited by S. Lerman, 315–325. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0.
   Google Scholar
• Leone, B., and C. Morgan. 2000. “Mathematicians Writing.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Washington: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 31 4: 429. 10.2307/749652.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, R. M. 2018. Concepts and Theories of Human Development. 4th ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Likhanov, M. V, E. S. Tsigeman, K. A. Papageorgiou, and A. F. Akmalov. 2020. “Ordinary Extraordinary: Elusive Group Differences in Personality and Psychological Difficulties between STEM Gifted Adolescents and Their Peers.” British Journal of Educational Psychology. British Psychological Society 91 (1): 78–100. doi:10.1111/bjep.12349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linneberg, M., and S. Korsgaard. 2019. “Coding Qualitative Data: A Synthesis Guiding the Novice.” Qualitative Research Journal 19 (3): 259–270. doi:10.1108/QRJ-12-2018-0012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löhr, G. 2019. “Social Constructionism, Concept Acquisition and the Mismatch Problem.” Synthese 196 (5): 1–15. doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02237-2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Machin, L., D. Hindmarch, S. Murray, and T. Richardson. 2020. A Complete Guide to the Level 5 Diploma in Education and Training. 3rd ed. St Albans: Critical Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Maker, C. J. 2020. “Identifying Exceptional Talent in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Increasing Diversity and Assessing Creative Problem-Solving.” Journal of Advanced Academics 31 (3): 161–210. doi:10.1177/1932202X20918203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manfra, M. M. 2019. “Action Research and Systematic, Intentional Change in Teaching Practice.” Review of Research in Education. American Educational Research Association 43 (1): 163–196. doi:10.3102/0091732X18821132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., A. M. Hubermann, and J. Saldaña. 2019. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 4th ed. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Mischo, C., and K. Maaß. 2013. “The Effect of Teacher Beliefs on Student Competence in Mathematical Modeling – An Intervention Study.” Journal of Education and Training Studies 1 (1). doi:10.11114/jets.v1i1.24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nowell, L. S., J. M. Norris, D. E. White, and N. J. Moules. 2017. “Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods. SAGE Publications Inc 16 (1). doi:10.1177/1609406917733847.
   Google Scholar
• NRICH. 2021. Developing Pupils’ Independence Through Mathematical Problem Solving Activities. notes.doc Accessed 9 May 2021. https://nrich.maths.org/content/id/5486/Seminar
   Google Scholar
• OCR. 2021. A Level Specification. Mathematics B (MEI). Accessed 21 March 2022. https://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/308740-specification-accredited-a-level-gce-mathematics-b-mei-h640.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation, (Ofqual). 2019. A Levels in 2019. Accessed 30 April 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/825429/A-Level-infographic_current___3_.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Opie, C., and D. Brown. 2019. Getting Started in Your Educational Research: Design, Data Production and Analysis. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Parish, L. C. 2014. “Defining Mathematical Giftedness.” Mathematics Education Research Group of Australisa 509–526.
   Google Scholar
• Peräkylä, A., and J. Ruusuvuori. 2018. “Analyzing Talk and Text.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 660–691. London: SAGE Publications .
   Google Scholar
• Pershan, M. 2021. Teaching Math With Examples. 1st ed. Melton: John Catt Educational.
   Google Scholar
• Petry, V. L. 2019. “Mathematics for the Gifted Learner.” In Selected Writings from the Journal of the Saskatchewan Mathematics Teachers’ Society. Celebrating 50 Years (1961-2011) of Vinculum, edited by E. J. Chernoff, G. L. Russel, and B. Sriraman, 263–268. 1st ed. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing .
   Google Scholar
• Pólya, G. 2015. How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Oxford: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Proctor, K. R., and R. E. Niemeyer. 2020. “Retrofitting Social Learning Theory with Contemporary Understandings of Learning and Memory Derived from Cognitive Psychology and Neuroscience.” Journal of Criminal Justice 66: Article 101655. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.101655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramadhanti, D., A. S. Ghazali, M. Hasanah, T. Harsiati, and D. P. Yanda. 2020. “The Use of Reflective Journal as a Tool for Monitoring of Metacognition Growth in Writing.” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET) 15 (11): 162. doi:10.3991/ijet.v15i11.11939.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, A., and B. Lingard. 2018. “Excellence in Education Policies: Catering to the Needs of Gifted and Talented or Those of Self-Interest?” European Educational Research Journal 17 (6): 877–897. doi:10.1177/1474904118771466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid, A.-M., J. M. Brown, J. M. Smith, A. C. Cope, and S. Jamieson. 2018. “Ethical Dilemmas and Reflexivity in Qualitative Research.” Perspectives on Medical Education 7 (2): 69–75. doi:10.1007/s40037-018-0412-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice, K. G., and M. E. Ray. 2018. “Perfectionism and the Gifted.” S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, and M. Foley-Nicpon edited by APA Handbook of Giftedness and Talent. 1st,645–658. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (APA Handbooks in Psychology. 10.1037/0000038-042.
   Google Scholar
• Roulston, K., and M. Choi. 2018. “Qualitative Interviews.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, edited by U. Flick, 233–249. London: SAGE Publications .
   Google Scholar
• Salazar, K. 2016. Diary Studies: Understanding Long-Term User Behaviour and Experiences. Accessed 7 May 2021. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/diary-studies/
   Google Scholar
• Saldaña, J. 2021. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications .
   Google Scholar
• Sellers, M. E., K. H. Roh, and E. D. Parr. 2021. “Student Quantifications as Meanings for Quantified Variables in Complex Mathematical Statements.” The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 61: 100802. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100802.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, R. M., J. Howe, J. Beazer, and T. Carr. 2019. “Ethics and Positionality in Qualitative Research with Vulnerable and Marginal Groups.” Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications 20 (3): 277–293. doi:10.1177/1468794119841839.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherrington, T. 2019. Rosenshine’s Principles in Action. 1st ed. Melton: John Catt Educational .
   Google Scholar
• Shirley, E., V. H. Mai, K. M. Neal, and K. V Blake. 2021. “Can a Checklist Improve the Informed Consent Process?” Cureus 13 (2): e13148. doi:10.7759/cureus.13148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siklos, S. 2019. Advanced Problems in Mathematics: Preparing for University. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. doi:10.11647/OBP.0181.
   Google Scholar
• Sim, J., B. Saunders, J. Waterfield, and T. Kingstone. 2018. “Can Sample Size in Qualitative Research Be Determined a Priori?” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 21 (5): 619–634. doi:10.1080/13645579.2018.1454643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorapure, M. 2019. “Text, Image, Data, Interaction: Understanding Information Visualization.” Computers and Composition 54: 102519. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2019.102519.
   Google Scholar
• Spence, A. 2019. Guide to Using OneNote as a Research Journal. Accessed 7 May 2021. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/205017/1/205017.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Szabo, Z. K., P. Körtesi, J. Guncaga, D. Szabo, and R. Neag. 2020. “Examples of Problem-Solving Strategies in Mathematics Education Supporting the Sustainability of 21st-Century Skills.” Sustainability 12 (23): 10113. doi:10.3390/su122310113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, G. 2017. How to Do Your Research Project. 3rd ed. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Tuffour, I. 2017. “A Critical Overview of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: A Contemporary Qualitative Research Approach.” Journal of Healthcare Communications 2 (4): 52. doi:10.4172/2472-1654.100093.
   Google Scholar
• University of Cambridge, (UoC). 2021. “Sixth Term Examination Paper (STEP) and Further Mathematics”. https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/applying/entrance-requirements/step (Accessed 26 October 2021).
   Google Scholar
• University of Oxford, (UoO). 2021. Summary of the 2020/21 Admissions Process. Accessed 26 January 2022. https://www.merton.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/inline-files/MathsJSAdmissionsFeedback2021.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. 1st ed. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wai, J., and F. C. Worrell. 2020. “How Talented Low-Income Kids Are Left Behind”. Phi Delta Kappan. Sage Publications Inc 102 (4): 26–29. doi:10.1177/0031721720978058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, H. 2017. ‘“it’s a Bloody Disaster … Stop Meddling in Maths”’ the Times Educational Supplement, 5257. London: TES Global Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Weimer, M. 2019. When Students’ Work Is Disappointing The Teaching Professor. Available at: Accessed 28 June 2021. https://www.teachingprofessor.com/topics/for-those-who-teach/when-students-work-is-disappointing/
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein, Y., M. Sumeracki, and O. Caviglioli. 2019. Understanding How We Learn. A Visual Guide. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wendler, D. 2020. “The Permissibility of Deception in Riskier Research.” Ethics & Human Research 42 (2): 34–40. doi:10.1002/eahr.500046.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Williams, M., and T. Moser. 2019. “The Art of Coding and Thematic Exploration in Qualitative Research.” International Management Review 15 (1): 45.
   Google Scholar
• Worrell, F. C., R. F. Subotnik, P. Olszewski-Kubilius, and D. D. Dixson. 2019. “Gifted Students”. Annual Review of Psychology. Annual Reviews 70 (1): 551–576. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar