Advertisement

Curriculum and Instructional Considerations in Programs for the Gifted

  • Joyce Van Tassel-Baska
  • Tamra Stambaugh

Several conceptions of curriculum have shaped the thinking of those working with gifted students. The roots of each of these conceptions can also be found in extant curriculum for the gifted; they represent strong philosophical orientations for what curriculum for the gifted might be. Sylwester (2003) suggests that students learn best when there is an emotional connection between the student, the teacher, and the content or curriculum. Given the intensities, precocity, and complexities of gifted students, the issues of emotional connections within curriculum and instruction are paramount. Researchers in neuroscience also suggest the importance of appropriate match of curriculum to students. Tomlinson and Kalbfleisch (1998, p. 54) explain that “[i]f a student engages in a curriculum that is well beyond that student’s level of readiness, stress results, and the brain over produces key neurotransmitters that impede learning (Koob, Cole, Swerdlow, & le Modal, 1990). Conversely, if the curriculum is redundant for the child—beneath that student’s level of readiness—the brain is not inclined to engage or respond and, consequently, does not release the levels of dopamine, noradrenalin, serotonin, and other neurochemicals needed for optimal learning. The result is apathy (Shultz, Dayan, &Montague, 1997).”

Keywords

Emotional Intelligence Gifted Student Creative Productivity Gifted Child Talent Development 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (1999). Assessing vocational preferences among gifted adolescents adds incremental validity to abilities: A discriminant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10-year interval. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 777–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, K., & Subotnik, R. (1994). Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  3. Banks, J. (1995). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 3–24). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Baum, S. (1988). Enrichment program for the gifted learning disabled students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 226–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum, S., Renzulli, J., & Herbert, T. P. (1995). Reversing under-achievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benbow, C. P., & Arjmand, O. (1990). Predictors of high academic achievement in mathematics and science by mathematically talented students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 430–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Betts, G. T., & Kercher, J. K. (1999). Autonomous learner model: Optimizing ability—Expanded and updated. Greeley, CO: ALPS Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  9. Bracken, B. A., VanTassel-Baska, J., Brown, E. F., & Feng, A. (2007). Project Athena: A tale of two studies. In J. VanTassel-Baska, T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked Gems: A National perspective on low-income promising learners. (pp. 63–67). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.Google Scholar
  10. Burns, D. (1988). The effects of group training activities on students’ creative productivity. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Technical report of research studies related to the revolving door identification model (2nd ed., pp. 147–174). Storrs: Research Report Series, School of Education, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  11. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. The University of Iowa, Iowa City: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.Google Scholar
  12. Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  13. Cross, T. (2000). On the social and emotional lives of gifted children. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  14. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper-Perennial.Google Scholar
  15. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Delcourt, M. A. B. (1993). Creative productivity among secondary school students: Combining energy, interest, and imagination. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delcourt, M. A. B. (1994). Characteristics of high-level creative productivity: A longitudinal study of students identified by Renzulli’s three misconceptions of greatness. In R. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 375–400). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  18. Enersen, D. (1996). Developing talent in Saturday and summer programs. Gifted Education International, 11(3), 159–163.Google Scholar
  19. Feldhusen, J. F., & Kolloff, M. B. (1986). The Purdue Three-Stage Model for Gifted Education. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 126–152). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
  20. Feldhusen, J. F., & Robinson-Wyman, A. (1986). The Purdue Secondary Model for gifted education. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 153–179). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ford, D. Y. (2002). Racial identity among gifted African American students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gallagher, J., & Gallagher, S. (1994). Teaching the gifted child (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  23. Greene, M. J. (2003). Gifted adrift? Career counseling of the gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 25, 66–72.Google Scholar
  24. Halsted, J. (2002). Some of my best friends are books: Guiding gifted readers from pre-school to high school (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.Google Scholar
  25. Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Herbert, T. P. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16, 22–28.Google Scholar
  27. Hirsch, E. D. (1989). Cultural literacy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  28. Keating, D. P. (Ed.). (1976). Intellectual talent: Research and development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kolloff, M. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1984). The effects of enrichment on self-concept and creative thinking. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 53–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Little, C., Feng., A., VanTassel-Baska, J., Rogers., K., & Avery., L. (2006, in press). A study of curriculum effectiveness in social studies. Gifted Child Quarterly.Google Scholar
  32. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1994). The study of mathematically precocious youth: The first three decades of a planned 50-year study of intellectual talent. In R. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 375–400). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  33. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Competing models of emotional intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), The handbook of intelligence (pp. 396–420). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. McLean, J. E., & Chisson, B. S. (1980). Talented unlimited program: Summary of research findings for 1979–80. Mobile, AL: Mobile County Public Schools.Google Scholar
  36. Moon, S. M. (2003). Personal talent. High Ability Studies, 14, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moon, S., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). The program for academic and creative enrichment (PACE): A follow-up study 10 years later. In R. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 375–400). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  38. Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillon, D. R. (1994). Long-term effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S.M. (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  40. Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1991). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research and curriculum (pp. 570–608). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Olenchak, F. R. (1999). Affective development of gifted students with nontraditional talents. Roeper Review, 21, 293–297.Google Scholar
  42. Olenchak, F. R., & Renzulli, J. S. (1989). The effectiveness of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model on selected aspects of elementary school change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pennebaker, J. (1997). Opening up: The healing power of expressing emotions. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  44. Peterson, J. S. (2003). Listening: Resisting the urge to fix them. In K. McCluskey & A. M. Mays (Eds.), Mentoring for talent development (pp. 126–142). Lennox, SD: Reclaiming Youth International.Google Scholar
  45. Reis, S. M., & Purcell, J. 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, 147–170.Google Scholar
  46. Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J. M., & Purcell, J. H. (1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
  48. Renzulli, J. S. (Ed.). (1988). Technical report of research studies related to the revolving door identification model. Storrs: Bureau of Educational Research, The University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  49. Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M., & Reis, S. M. (2003). Enrichment clusters: A practical plan for real-world, student-driven learning. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
  50. Renzulli, J. S., Reis, S. M., & Smith, L. (1981). The revolving-door model: A new way of identifying the gifted. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 648–649.Google Scholar
  51. Rodd, J. (1999). Encouraging young children’s critical and creative thinking skills: An approach in one English elementary school. Childhood Education, 75, 350–354.Google Scholar
  52. Salovey, P., Bedell, B., Detweiler, J., & Mayer, J. (2000). Current directions in emotional intelligence research. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 504–520). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  53. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211.Google Scholar
  54. Schack, G. D., Starko, A. J., & Burns, D. E. (1991). Self-efficacy and creative productivity: Three studies of above average ability children. Journal of Research in Education, 1, 44–52.Google Scholar
  55. Schlichter, C. (1986). Talents unlimited: Applying the multiple talent approach in mainstream and gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
  56. Schlichter, C. L., & Palmer, W. R. (Eds.). (1993). Thinking smart: A premiere of the talents unlimited model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
  57. Spady, W. G. (2000). Breaking out of the box. American School Board Journal, 187(1), 52–53.Google Scholar
  58. Stambaugh, T., & Stambaugh, T. (2002). Meeting the social and emotional needs of gifted students: A model for practitioners. Presentation at the All Ohio Counselors Association, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  59. Stanley, J. C., Keating, D., & Fox, L. (1974). Mathematical talent. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Sternberg, R. (1981). A componential theory of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sternberg, R., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1995). The triadic model applied to identify, teach, and assess gifted children. Roeper Review, 17, 255–260.Google Scholar
  62. Sternberg, R. J., Ferrari, M., Clinkenbeard, P., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1996). Identification, instruction, and assessment of gifted children: A construct validation of a triarchic model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998a). Teaching for successful intelligence raises school achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 667–699.Google Scholar
  64. Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998b). Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 374–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Strop, J. (2002). Meeting the social emotional needs of gifted adolescents: A personal and contextual journey. Understanding Our Gifted, 14(3), 7–11.Google Scholar
  66. Swiatek, M. A. (1998). Helping gifted adolescents cope with social stigma. Gifted Child Today, 21(1), 42–46.Google Scholar
  67. Swiatek, M. A. (2000). A decade of longitudinal research on academic acceleration through the study of mathematically precocious youth. Roeper Review, 24, 141–144.Google Scholar
  68. Sylwester, R. (2003). A biological brain in a cultural classroom: Enhancing cognitive and social development through collaborative classroom management (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  69. Taylor, C. W., Ghiselin, B., Wolfer, J., Loy, L., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (1964). Development of a theory of education from psychology and other basic research findings. Final Report, USOE Cooperative Research Project, No. 621. Salt Lake City: University of Utah.Google Scholar
  70. Tomlinson, C., & Kalbfleisch. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain—A call for differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 52–55.Google Scholar
  71. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instruction models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 164–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Research on curriculum models in gifted education. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Curriculum and instruction planning and design for gifted learners (pp. 13–34). Denver, CO: Love.Google Scholar
  73. VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L. D., Little, C. A., & Hughes, C. E. (2000). An evaluation of the implementation of curriculum innovation: The impact of William and Mary units on schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 244–272.Google Scholar
  74. VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. (1998). A national pilot study of science curriculum effectiveness for high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Feng, A. (Eds.). (2004). Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  76. VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D. T., Hughes, C. E., & Boyce, L. N. (1996). A study of language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 461–480.Google Scholar
  77. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Little, C. (2003). Content-based curriculum for high ability learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  78. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  79. VanTassel-Baska, J., Zuo, L., Avery, L. D., & Little, C. A. (2002). A curriculum study of gifted student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46 (1), 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joyce Van Tassel-Baska
    • 1
  • Tamra Stambaugh
    • 2
  1. 1.College of William and MaryUSA
  2. 2.College of William & Mary and Muskigum CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations