Many articles have been published in gifted education in recent years. This study aims to provide a comprehensive review of the evolution of academic studies in gifted education. In this context, the structural topic modeling (STM) method was used to analyze the topics and trends in the field. STM is a machine learning technique that utilizes natural language processing techniques based on text mining. It is a valuable methodology for identifying a text corpus’s main topics and trends. The corpus used in this study is 5,127 articles from nine leading journals in giftedness without any year limitations. As a result of the analysis, five topics that prominently emerged in the literature were discovered. These are curriculum and instruction, social-emotional characteristics, thinking skills, identification and assessment tools, and equity and policies. The research topics and trends discovered due to the analysis are discussed within the literature framework, and recommendations are presented.
AlsrourN. H.Al-AliS. (2014). An investigation of the differences in creativity of preschool children according to gender, age and kindergarten type in Jordan. Gifted and Talented International, 29(1–2), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2014.11678427
2.
AltıntasV.AlbayrakM.TopalK. (2021). Kanser hastalığı ile ilgili paylaşımlar için Dirichlet ayrımı ile gizli konu modelleme [Topic modeling with latent Dirichlet allocation for cancer disease posts]. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(4), 2183–2196. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.734730
AsmussenC. B.MøllerC. (2019). Smart literature review: A practical topic modelling approach to exploratory literature review. Journal of Big Data, 6(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-019-0255-7
5.
AzeroualO. (2019). A text and data analytics approach to enrich the quality of unstructured research information. Computer and Information Science, 12(4), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.5539/cis.v12n4p84
6.
BaccassinoF.PinnelliS. (2023). Giftedness and gifted education: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 1073007. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1073007
7.
BaiX.ZhangX.LiK. X.ZhouY.YuenK. F. (2021). Research topics and trends in the maritime transport: A structural topic model. Transport Policy, 102, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.12.013
BembenuttyH. (2009). Teaching effectiveness, course evaluation, and academic performance: The role of academic delay of gratification. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(2), 326–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X090200020
BrownS. W.YakimowskiM. E. (1987). Intelligence scores of gifted students on the WISC-R. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(3), 130–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628703100308
13.
BurnsD. E.ReisS. M. (1991). Developing a thinking skills component in the gifted education program. Roeper Review, 14(2), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199109553391
14.
CallahanC.MoonT.OhS.AzanoA.HaileyE. (2015). What works in gifted education: Documenting the effects of an integrated curricular/instructional model for gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 137–167. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214549448
15.
CaoJ.XiaT.LiJ.ZhangY.TangS. (2009). A density-based method for adaptive LDA model selection. Neurocomputing: An International Journal, 72(7–9), 1775–1781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2008.06.011
16.
CaoT. H.JungJ. Y.LeeJ. (2017). Assessment in gifted education: A review of the literature from 2005 to 2016. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(3), 163–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17714572
17.
ChamberlinS. A. (2008). An examination of articles in gifted education and multicultural education journals. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2008-820
18.
ChenX.ZouD.ChengG.XieH. (2020). Detecting latent topics and trends in educational technologies over four decades using structural topic modeling: A retrospective of all volumes of Computers & Education. Computers & Education, 151, 103855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103855
19.
ChenX.ZouD.XieH. (2022). A decade of learning analytics: Structural topic modeling based bibliometric analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 10517–10561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11046-z
ColemanL. J.GuoA.DabbsC. S. (2007). The state of qualitative research in gifted education as published in American journals: An analysis and critique. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986206296656
22.
DaiD. Y.SwansonJ. A.ChengH. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998-2010 (April). Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(2), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210397831
23.
DasK.PatelJ. D.SharmaA.ShuklaY. (2023). Creativity in marketing: Examining the intellectual structure using scientometric analysis and topic modeling. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113384
24.
DasS.DixonK.SunX.DuttaA.ZupancichM. (2017). Trends in transportation research: Exploring content analysis in topics. Transportation Research Record, 2614(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.3141/2614-04
25.
DreisbachC.KoleckT. A.BourneP. E.BakkenS. (2019). A systematic review of natural language processing and text mining of symptoms from electronic patient-authored text data. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 125, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.02.008
26.
DwivediY. K.SharmaA.RanaN. P.GiannakisM.GoelP.DutotV. (2023). Evolution of artificial intelligence research in technological forecasting and social change: Research topics, trends, and future directions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 192, 122579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122579
27.
ErikssonG. (1988). Thinking in visual images in the information age—The changing faces of the school. Gifted Education International, 5(2), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142948800500208
28.
FarrellJ. (2016). Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(1), 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509433112
FrantzR. S.McClartyK. L. (2016). Gifted education’s reflection of country-specific cultural, political, and economic features. Gifted and Talented International, 31(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2016.1220794
31.
FryerP. (2005). Being a learning organisation: Humberside Training and Enterprise Council, UK. Gifted Education International, 20(3), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940502000304
32.
GargN.SharmaK. (2022). Text pre-processing of multilingual for sentiment analysis based on social network data. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), 12(1), 776–784. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v12i1.pp776-784
GurlenE.ÖzdiyarÖ.ŞenZ. (2019). Üstün yeteneklilere yönelik akademik çalışmaların sosyal ağ analizi [Social network analysis of academic studies on gifted people]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 44(197), 185–208. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2018.7735
HaysT. S. (1993). An historical content analysis of publications in gifted education journals. Roeper Review, 16(1), 41–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199309553533
Hernández-TorranoD.KuzhabekovaA. (2020). The state and development of research in the field of gifted education over 60 years: A bibliometric study of four gifted education journals (1957-2017). High Ability Studies, 31(2), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1601071
41.
HillJ. E.HarrisC.CleggA. (2023). Methods for using Bing’s AI-powered search engine for data extraction for a systematic review. Research Synthesis Methods, 15(2), 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1689
HodgesJ.TayJ.MaedaY.GentryM. (2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752107
44.
HvitfeldtE.SilgeJ. (2021). Supervised machine learning for text analysis in R. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://smltar.com/
45.
JollyJ. L.KettlerT. (2008). Gifted education research 1994-2003: A disconnect between priorities and practice. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 427–446. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2008-792
46.
JungJ. Y.TownendG.HayP. K.SmithS. R. (2022). The state of knowledge in rural gifted education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Advanced Academics, 33(3), 315–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X221076385
47.
KayaA.GulbandılarE. (2022). Konu modelleme yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması [Comparison of topic modeling methods]. Eskişehir Türk Dünyası Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Bilişim Dergisi, 3(2), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.53608/estudambilisim.1097978
48.
KettlerT.HurstL. T. (2017). Advanced academic participation: A longitudinal analysis of ethnicity gaps in suburban schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216686217
49.
KuhnK. D. (2018). Using structural topic modeling to identify latent topics and trends in aviation incident reports. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 87, 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.12.018
50.
LavisJ. N.DaviesH.OxmanA.DenisJ.Golden-BiddleK.FerlieE. (2005). Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(Suppl. 1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308549
51.
LeeH.GentryM. (2023). The major characteristics and trends of gifted education doctoral dissertation research from 2006 through 2016. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 46(4), 340–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532231199267
MatthewsM. S.GentryM.McCoachD. B.WorrellF. C.MatthewsD.DixonF. (2008). Evaluating the state of a field: Effect size reporting in gifted education. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.77.1.55-68
MiS.BiH.LuS. (2020). Trends and foundations of creativity research in education: A method based on text mining. Creativity Research Journal, 32(3), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1821554
62.
MiS.LuS.BiH. (2020). Trends and foundations in research on students’ conceptual understanding in science education: A method based on the structural topic model. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(4), 551–568.
63.
MurakamiA.ThompsonP.HunstonS.VajnD. (2017). “What is this corpus about?” Using topic modelling to explore a specialised corpus. Corpora, 12(2), 243–277. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2017.0118
NicholsonJ.MordauntM.LopezP.UppalaA.DomenicR.RodriguesN.GrabitzP.RifeS. (2021). Scite: A smart citation index that displays the context of citations and classifies their intent using deep learning. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(3), 882–898. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00146
66.
NordströmM. E. (2022). Swedish preschool teachers and principals’ conceptions of giftedness and gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 45(3), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532221105602
67.
ParkerM. R.JordanK. R.KirkE. R.AspirantiK. B.BainS. K. (2010). Publications in four gifted education journals from 2001 to 2006: An analysis of article types and authorship characteristics. Roeper Review, 32(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2010.485309
68.
PetersS. J. (2022a). The challenges of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211002535
PetersonJ. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 280–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346946
71.
PfeifferS. I. (2015). Essentials of gifted assessment. John Wiley & Sons.
72.
PriddieC.RenbargerR. (2023). Connecting QuantCrit to gifted education research: An introduction. Gifted Child Quarterly, 67(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862221116636
73.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
74.
ReichJ.TingleyD.LederJ.RobertsM. E.StewartB. M. (2015). Computer-assisted reading and discovery for student-generated text in massive open online courses. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(1), 156–184. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2015.21.82
75.
ReisS. M.GubbinsE. J.BriggsC. J.SchreiberF. J.RichardsS.JacobsJ. K.EckertR. C.RenzulliJ. S. (2004). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few opportunities for continuous progress. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(4), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800406
76.
ReisS. M.PurcellJ. H. (1993). An analysis of content elimination and strategies used by elementary classroom teachers in the curriculum compacting process. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329301600205
77.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2003). Current research on the social and emotional development of gifted and talented students: Good news and future possibilities. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10144
78.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012
79.
RenzulliJ. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901
80.
RinnA. N. (2024). A critique on the current state of research on the social and emotional experiences of gifted individuals and a framework for moving the field forward. Gifted Child Quarterly, 68(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231197780
81.
RobertsM. E.StewartB. M.TingleyD. (2016). Navigating the local modes of big data: The case of topic models. In AlvarezR. M. (Ed.), Computational social science: Discovery and prediction (pp. 51–97). Cambridge University Press.
82.
RobertsM. E.StewartB. M.TingleyD. (2019). STM: An R package for structural topic models. Journal of Statistical Software, 91(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v091.i02
83.
RobertsM. E.StewartB. M.TingleyD.LucasC.Leder-LuisJ.GadarianS. K.AlbertsonB.RandD. G. (2014). Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1064–1082. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12103
84.
RoseR. L.PuranikT. G.MavrisD. N.RaoA. H. (2022). Application of structural topic modeling to aviation safety data. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 224, 108522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.108522
85.
SchweigardtW. J.WorrellF. C.HaleR. J. (2001). Gender differences in the motivation for and selection of courses in a summer program for academically talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(4), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862010450040
SevierR. C.BainS. K.HildmanL. K. (1994). Comparison of WISC-R and WISC-III for gifted students. Roeper Review, 17(1), 39–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199409553615
88.
SharmaA.RanaN. P.NunkooR. (2021). Fifty years of information management research: A conceptual structure analysis using structural topic modeling. International Journal of Information Management, 58, 102316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102316
89.
ShiW.LinY.ZhangZ.SuJ. (2022). Gender differences in sex education in China: A structural topic modeling analysis based on online knowledge community Zhihu. Children, 9(5), 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9050615
SinghV.SinghP.KarmakarM.LetaJ.MayrP. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5113–5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5
93.
SmedsrudJ. (2020). Explaining the variations of definitions in gifted education. Nordic Studies in Education, 40(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.23865/nse.v40.2129
94.
SmithJ. S. (2006). Examining the long-term impact of achievement loss during the transition to high school. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(4), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2006-409
95.
SternbergR. J. (2022). Personal talent curation in the lifetime realization of gifted potential: The role of adaptive intelligence. Gifted Education International, 38(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294221086505
96.
SteyversM.GriffithsT. (2007). Probabilistic topic models. In LandauerT. K.McNamaraD. S.DennisS.KintschW. (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 427–448). Routledge.
97.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
98.
ThomsonP.JaqueS. V. (2016). Overexcitability: A psychological comparison between dancers, opera singers, and athletes. Roeper Review, 38(2), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1150373
99.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrownE. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306323
100.
WangC. W.NeihartM. (2015). How do supports from parents, teachers, and peers influence academic achievement of twice-exceptional students. Gifted Child Today, 38(3), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217515583742
101.
WarneR. T.LazoM.RamosT.RitterN. (2012). Statistical methods used in gifted education journals, 2006-2010. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444122
102.
WestonS. J.ShryockI.LightR.FisherP. A. (2023). Selecting the number and labels of topics in topic modeling: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231160105
103.
WirthweinL.BeckerC. V.LoehrE. M.RostD. H. (2011). Overexcitabilities in gifted and non-gifted adults: Does sex matter?High Ability Studies, 22(2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2011.622944
104.
WorleyC.YoungJ. (2023). The color of gifted education research: A 20-year content analysis of selected journals. Roeper Review, 45(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2023.2172752
105.
WorrellF. C.DixsonD. D. (2022). Achieving equity in gifted education: Ideas and issues. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 79–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211068551
ZhaoW.ChenJ. M.PerkinsR.LiuZ.GeW.DingY.ZouW. (2015). A heuristic approach to determine an appropriate number of topics in topic modeling. BMC Bioinformatics, 16(S13), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-16-s13-s8
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
