Abstract
The rapid expansion and qualitative changes in the field of science from the late 20th century to the 21st century have had a great impact on the social structure, cutting down routine jobs and physical labour while increasing jobs dealing with abstract and creative challenges.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Campbell, J. R., & Feng, A. X. (2011). Comparing adult productivity of American mathematics, chemistry, and physics Olympians with Terman’s longitudinal study. Roeper Review, 33, 18–25.
Cho, S., & Cambell, J. R. (2011). Differential influences of family processes for scientifically talented individuals’ academic achievement along developmental stages. Roeper Review, 33, 33–45.
College Board. (2015). Annual AP program participation 1956–2015. Retrieved from https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/research/2015/2015-Annual-Participation.pdf
Cross, T. L., & Frazier, A. D. (2010). Guiding the psychosocial development of gifted students attending specialized residential STEM schools. Roeper Review, 32, 32–41.
Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 115–121.
Faustino, J. B., Sumida, M., Fajardo, A. C., & Pawilen, G. T. (2010). Parallel curriculum for the development of problem-solving skills of gifted children in grade III science. Bulletin of the Center for Education and Educational Research the Faculty of Education Ehime University, 28, 51–65.
Johnson, D. T., Boyce, L. N., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (1995). Science curriculum review: Evaluating materials for high-ability learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(1), 36–44.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345.
Mönks, F. J., & Pflüger, R. (2015). Gifted education in 21 European countries: Inventory and perspective. Retrieved from https://www.bmbf.de/pub/gifted_education_21_eu_countries.pdf
National Association for Gifted Children. (2013). 2013 NAGC-CEC teacher preparation standards in gifted education. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2015). Gifted education in the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/gifted-education-us
Sondergeld, T. A., & Schultz, R. A. (2008). Science, standards, and differentiation. Gifted Child Today, 31(1), 34–40.
Sumida, M. (2010). Identifying twice-exceptional children and three gifted styles in the Japanese primary science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2097–2111.
Sumida, M. (2012). Meeting the needs of twice-exceptional children in the science classroom. In S. Wichian (Ed.), Learning disabilities (pp. 149–174). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.
Sumida, M. (2017). Gifted science education in the context of Japanese standardization. In M. Sumida & K. S. Taber (Eds.), Policy and practice in science education for the gifted: Approaches from diverse national contexts. Routledge.
Sumida, M., & Ohashi, A. (2015). Chemistry education for gifted learners. In J. Garcia-Martinez & E. Serrano-Torregrosa (Eds.), Chemistry education: Best practices, opportunities and trends (pp. 469–487). Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
Sumida, M., Shirahata, A., & Kato, T. (2010). Development of science teacher training program for the gifted. 1: Model of thinking and behaviours of science teachers of science contest winner students (pp. 355–356). Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of Japan Society for Science Education, Japan.
Terman, L. M. (1954). Scientists and non-scientists in a group of 800 gifted men. Psychological Monograph: General and Applied, 68(7), 1–43.
Tirri, K. (2000, August). Actualizing mathematical giftedness in adulthood. Paper presented at the ECHA Conference, Debrecen, Hungary.
Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J., Leppien, J., & Burns, D. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. S. (1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(4), 200–211.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., & Feng, A. X. (2007). The development and use of a structured teacher observation scale to assess differentiated best practice. Roeper Review, 29, 84–92.
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 860–871.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sumida, M. (2017). Science Education for Gifted Learners. In: Taber, K.S., Akpan, B. (eds) Science Education. New Directions in Mathematics and Science Education. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_35
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_35
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-749-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)