Archive

Volume 2, Number 6 / December issue 2016
Gregory Baldridge
The needs of high school gifted curriculum
Abstract

The development of high quality curriculum is a shared vision between educators, administrators, and developers, and, as a result, large publishers, school districts, and individual teachers develop disparate curriculums. To make things more complicated, the curricular needs of gifted learners differ from those in general education settings - a point that is especially true in high school science classes. Science curriculum is particularly poised to meet the unique needs of gifted learners. The sciences can provide many opportunities including greater depth and complexity and/or accelerated materials.
Keywords: curriculum, school, gifted, science

Cite this article:
Gregory Baldridge. The needs of high school gifted curriculum. Acta Scientiae et Intellectus, 2(6)2016, 29-40.


REFERENCES

  1. Anderson, L. (2014). Visual-spatial ability: Important in STEM, ignored in gifted education. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 36(2), 114-121.
  2. Bradford, J., Mowder, D., & Bohte, J. (2016). You can lead students to water, but you can’t make them think: An assessment of student engagement and learning through student centered teaching. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(4).
  3. Bull, B. (1990). The Moral Dimensions of Teaching. Goodlad, J., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. (Ed.). San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  4. Çalikoglu, B., & Kahveci, N. (2015). Altering depth and complexity in the science curriculum for the gifted: Results of an experiment. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching 16(1) 6.
  5. Chingos, M. (2013). Class size and student outcomes: research and policy outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(2), 411-438.
  6. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back america’s brightest students (Vols. 1-2). Iowa City: Univeristy of Iowa, The Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
  7. Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and promising practices. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  8. Dodds, K. (2010). Effects of the prompts of depth and complexity on gifted and non-gifted students (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
  9. Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub L. No. 114-95 (2015).
  10. Gordon, J., Barnes, C., and Martin, K. (2009). Undergraduate research methods: does size matter? A look at the attitudes and outcomes of students in a hybrid class format versus a traditional class format. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 20(3), 227-248.
  11. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
  12. Marland, S. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented, Volume I: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  13. Missett, T., Azano, A., Callahan, C., & Landrum, K. (2016). The influence of teacher expectations about twice-exceptional students on the use of high quality gifted curriculum: A case study approach. Exceptionality, 24(1), 18-31.
  14. Moon, T., & Park, S. (2016). Fidelity of intervention of English/ language arts elementary curriculum for gifted students: An exploratory investigation in different service delivery models. Journal for the Investigation of the Gifted, 39(1).
  15. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Monitoring school quality: An indicators report (NCES 2001-030). Washington, DC: Mayer, D., Mullens, J., & Moore, M.
  16. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Table 41. Enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by grade and state: Fall 1997. Washington, DC.
  17. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2011).
  18. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2011 (NSF 11–309). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
  19. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
  20. Norman, A. (2011). Educating the gifted. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1).
  21. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (1999). Meeting the needs of gifted students: Differentiating mathematics and science instruction. Portland. Stepanek, J. Ramirez, E. (2008) Opting out of ap classes. U.S. News & World Report, 145(7).
  22. Riba, S., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., Santarén, M., & Urraca-Martínez, M. (2015). Evaluation of satisfaction in an extracurricular enrichment program for high-intellectual ability participants. Psicothema, 27(2).
  23. Stromberg, J. (2013, November 13). These new 3d models put the smithsonian’s most renowned items in your hands: Models of the wright flyer, the wooly mammoth and 19 other items are available in a new web-based viewer and printable in 3d. Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/these-new-3d-models-put-the-smithsonians-most-renowned-items-in-your-hands-180947679/
  24. Sutherland, M. (2005). Gifted and Talented in the Early Years: Practical Activities for Children Age 3 to 5. London. Paul Chapman Publishing.
  25. Tabler, K. (2007). Science Education for Gifted Learners. London. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.
  26. VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. (1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(200).
  27. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003) Curriculum Planning & Instructional Design for Gifted Learners. Denver. Love Publishing Company.
  28. Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  29. Yager, R. (2015). The role of exploration in the classroom (STEM). Society, 52(3), 210-219.