Abstract
The intense global competition for talents and the development of the knowledge economy as well as advancements in learning sciences and instructional methods have brought about tremendous changes and possibilities in using and designing innovative curriculum and pedagogies in classrooms. Thus, ensuring school curriculum meets the needs of learners living in an increasingly complex, fast-changing and interactive world which is a major concern for educators in almost all countries (in the most recent International Handbook of Curriculum Research (2014), Pinar (International handbook of curriculum research. Routledge, New York, 2014) brings together curriculum change efforts in at least 34 countries that accordingly reflect “the localised and reconstructed character” of curriculum across unique histories and culture (p.1).). In Singapore, curriculum initiatives such as the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (TSLN) and Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM) attempt to strengthen teacher capacity to customise curriculum and instruction to engage the learners. Two major changes took place involving the high-ability learners (HALs). In 2004, the Ministry of Education (MOE) implemented the Integrated Programme (IP) at the secondary level to enable schools with high-ability learners to focus less on preparation for high-stakes examination and instead spend the time on opportunities that broaden their learning experience. Three years later, the MOE announced the extension of the Gifted Education Programme (GEP)-like curriculum to the next 4 % at the primary level (refer Neihart, M. F., & Tan, L. S. (2016). Critical assessment of gifted education in Singapore. In Y. D. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), A critical assessment of gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 77–96). New York: Information Age Publishing). These initiatives require teachers to widen the scope of curriculum for high-ability learners and provide classroom experiences that build deeper conceptual understanding and broader skills. Thus, a curriculum innovation such as the IP is arguably “a programme that is intentionally designed to engage learners in activities or events that will have educational benefits for them” (Eisner, E. W. (2001). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programmes (3rd ed.), p. 31. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.) beyond the requirements of the high-stakes examination. Even as changes are taking place in differentiating curriculum to meet the needs of learners, with the increasing speed of change and the information explosion around the world, teaching with an emphasis on thinking (Alexander R, Towards dialogic teaching, 3rd edn. Dialogos, New York, 2001; Paul R, Elder L, A miniature guide for students and faculty to scientific thinking. Foundation for Critical Thinking, Tomales, 2003) and for building conceptual understanding has been heralded as an effective approach within many curriculum frameworks (Erickson LH, Concept-based curriculum and instruction: teaching beyond the facts. Corwin Press, Inc., Thousand Oaks, 2002; Tomlinson CA et al, The parallel curriculum: a design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. Corwin Press, Inc., Thousand Oaks, 2002; VanTassel-Baska J, Stambaugh T, Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners, 3rd edn. Pearson Education, Inc. Boston, 2006). There is therefore value in analysing and documenting the efforts in creating concept-based curriculum and pedagogies for high-ability learners (HALs), both in the Singapore context and around the world. This is particularly important in the context of the continued use of standards-based and high-stakes examinations in educational systems in Asia and in other parts of the world.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the most recent International Handbook of Curriculum Research (2014), Pinar (William F Pinar, 2014) brings together curriculum change efforts in at least 34 countries that accordingly reflect “the localised and reconstructed character” of curriculum across unique histories and culture (p.1).
References
Alexander, R. (2001). Towards dialogic teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Dialogos.
Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). In L. W. Anderson & D. R. Krathwohl (Eds.), A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Avery, L. D., & Little, C. A. (2003). Concept development and learning. In J. VanTassel-Baska & C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (pp. 101–124). Washington, DC: Prufrock Press.
Bell, T. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349.
Bennet, D., & Bennet, A. (2008). The depth of knowledge: Surface, shallow or deep? NIVE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 38(4), 405–420.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education in a knowledge society. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 11–33). Chicago: Open Court.
Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. High Education Research and Development, 18(1), 57–75.
Boaler, J., Williams, C., & Confer, A. (2014). Fluency without fear: Research evidence on the best ways to learn math facts. Retrieved from http://youcubed.org/teachers/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/FluencyWithoutFear.pdf
Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., & Austin, G. (1999). The process of concept attainment. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 101–123). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chi, M. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in Science. In R. Giere & H. Feigl (Eds.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 129–186). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank Centre.
Corson, D. (1988). Oral language across the curriculum. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cremin, T., Burnard, P., & Craft, A. (2006). Pedagogy and possibility thinking in the early years. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 108–119. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.07.001.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortiner, R., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23 (7), 5–12.
Ehrenberg, S. D. (1981). Concept learning: How to make it happen in the classroom. Educational Leadership, 39(1), 36–43.
Eisner, E. W. (1985). Five basic orientations to the curriculum. In The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programmes (pp. 61–86). New York: Macmillan.
Eisner, E. W. (2001). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programmes (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Erickson, L. H. (2001). Stirring the head, heart and soul: Redefining curriculum and instruction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Erickson, L. H. (2002). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond the facts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Gallagher, J., & Gallagher, S. (1994). Teaching the gifted child (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Greene, M. J. (2003). Gifted adrift? Career counseling of the gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 25, 66–72.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1997). Qualitative changes in intuitive biology. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XII, 111–130.
Hogan, D., Kwek, D., Towndrow, P., Rahim, R. A., Tan, T. K., & Chan, M. (2014). Visible learning and the enacted curriculum in Singapore. In Z. Deng (Ed.), Globalization and the Singapore curriculum: From policy to classroom (pp. 121–149). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Hogan, D., Rahim, R. A., Chan, M., Kwek, D., & Towndrow, P. (2012). Understanding classroom talk in secondary three mathematics classes in Singapore. In B. Kaur & T. L. Toh (Eds.), Reasoning and communication and connections in mathematics (pp. 169–197). Singapore, Singapore: World Scientific.
Kazak, S., Wegerif, R., & Fujita, T. (2015). The importance of dialogic processes to conceptual development in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 90, 105–120. doi:10.1007/sl0649-015-9618-y.
Lyle, S. (2008). Dialogic teaching: Discussing theoretical contexts and reviewing evidence from classroom practice. Language and Education, 22(3), 222–240.
Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD.: Aspen Systems Publication.
Manson, L. (2003). Personal epistemologies and intentional conceptual change. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 199–236). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Manson, L., & Gava, M. (2007). Effects of epistemological beliefs and learning text structure on conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the problem of conceptual change in learning and instruction (pp. 165–196). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 3–81). London: The MIT Press.
Martorella, P. H. (1986). Teaching concepts. In M. C. James (Ed.), Classroom teaching skills. Lexington, MA: Healty and Company.
Martorella, P. H. (1990). Strategies for aiding students in comprehending social studies subject matter. The Social Studies, 81(3), 131–134.
Mazur, E. (1992). Qualitative vs. quantitative thinking: Are we teaching the right thing? Optics and Photonics News, 2(38).
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Medin, D. L., Lynch, E. B., & Solomon, K. O. (2000). Are there kinds of concepts? Annual Review Psychology, 51, 121–147.
Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21, 19–41.
Myhill, D., & Fisher, R. (2005). Informing practice in English: A review of recent research in literacy and the teaching of English. London: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate.
Neihart, M. F., & Tan, L. S. (2016). Critical assessment of gifted education in Singapore. In Y. D. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), A critical assessment of gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 77–96). New York: Information Age Publishing.
Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Passow, A. H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented. Paper presented at the first national conference on curricula for the gifted/talented, Ventura, CA.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2003). A miniature guide for students and faculty to scientific thinking. Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New York: The Free Press.
Pinar, W. F. (2014). International handbook of curriculum research. New York: Routledge.
Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2004). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York: Peter Lang.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
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.
Rosch, E. (1999). Principles of categorisation. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 189–206). London: The MIT Press.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2002). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 1370–1373). New York: Macmillan Reference.
Schneps, M. H., & Sadler, P. M. (1998). A private universe. New York: Annenberg/CPB.
Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning: Research and perspectives (pp. 1–51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, J. P., III, Disessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Science, 3(2), 115–163.
Sternberg, R. (1985). Beyond IQ. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Taba, H. (1966). Teaching strategies and cognitive functioning in elementary school children (Cooperative research project). Washington, DC: Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
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, Inc.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Educaiton, Inc.
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competencies: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938
Vosniadou, S. (2012). Reframing the classical approach to conceptual change: Preconceptions, misconceptions and synthetic models. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbooks of science education (pp. 119–130). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381–419.
Vosniadou, S., Skopeliti, I., & Ikospentaki, K. (2005). Reconsidering the role of artifacts in reasoning: Children’s understanding of the globe as a model of the earth. Learning and Instruction, 15, 333–351.
Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge.
Ward, V. S. (1961). Differential education for the gifted. Los Angeles: National/State Leadership Training Institute for the Gifted and Talented.
Young, M., & Lambert, D. (2014). Knowledge and the future school: Curriculum and social justice. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Zirbel, E. L. (2006). Teaching to promote understanding and instigate conceptual change. Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 38, 1220.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tan, L.S., Tan, K.C.K. (2017). Theory, Research and Conceptions of Curriculum for High Ability Learners: Key Findings, Issues and Debates. In: Tan, L., Ponnusamy, L., Quek, C. (eds) Curriculum for High Ability Learners. Education Innovation Series. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2697-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2697-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2695-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2697-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)