The impact of advanced curriculum on the achievement of mathematically promising elementary students

Gifted Child Quarterly

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 188-202

  Gavin, M Katherine ^a,d   Casa, Tutita M ^a   Adelson, Jill L ^a   Carroll, Susan R ^b   Sheffield, Linda Jensen ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^b Words and Numbers Research Inc

^c NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Neag Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development   (United States)

Author keywords

Curriculum; Elementary; Mathematically promising; Mathematics

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650485729     PISSN: 00169862     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0016986209334964     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Boix Mansilla, V., & Gardner, H. (2008). Disciplining the mind. Educational Leadership, 65, 14-19.
2. Chapin, S.H., O'Connor, C., & Anderson, N.C. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, grades 1-6. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.
3. Chazan, D., & Ball, D.L. (1995). Beyond exhortations not to tell: The teacher's role in discussion-intensive mathematics classes (Craft Paper 95-2). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
4. Clements, D.H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a framework for "research-based curricula." Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 35-70.
5. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
6. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1). 15-42. (Pubitemid 38202849)
7. Confrey, J. (2006). Comparing and contrasting the National Research Council report on evaluating curricular effectiveness with the What Works Clearing House approach. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 195-213. (Pubitemid 44672370)
8. Forman, E.A. (1996). Learning mathematics as participation in classroom practice: Implications of sociocultural theory for educational reform. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 115-130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Forman, E.A. (2003). A sociocultural approach to mathematics reform: Speaking, inscribing, and doing mathematics within communities of practice. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 333-352). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
10. Fuson, K.C. (2004). Pre-K to grade 2 goals and standards: Achieving 21st-century mastery for all. In D. H. Clements & J. Sarama (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards in early childhood mathematics education (pp. 105-148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Gavin, M.K. (2005). Are we missing anyone? Identifying mathematically promising students. Gifted Education Communicator, Fall/Winter, 24-29.
12. Gavin, M.K., & Adelson, J.L. (2007). Mathematics, elementary. In Callahan, C. & Plucker, J. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
13. Hadamard, J.W. (1945). Essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14. Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement. (1997). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace.
15. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Fucson, K.C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., et al. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
16. Hoover, H.D., Dunbar, S.B., Frisbie, D.A., Oberley, K.R., Ordman, V.L., & Naylor, R.J. (2003). The Iowa tests guide to research and development. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
17. Kazemi, E. (1998). Discourse that promotes conceptual understanding. Teaching Children Mathematics, 4, 410-414.
18. Kelly, A.E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological ? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1). 115-128.
19. Krutetskii, V.A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren (J. Teller, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1968 )
20. Mewborn, D.S., & Huberty, P.D. (1999). Questioning your way to the Standards. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6, 226-227, 243-246.
21. Miller, R., & Mills, C. (1995). The Appalachia Model Mathematics Program for gifted students. Roeper Review, 18, 138-141.
22. Moore, N.D., & Wood, S.S. (1988). Mathematics in elementary school: Mathematics with a gifted difference. Roeper Review, 10, 231-234.
23. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2008). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2007. Retrieve February 13, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2007494.pdf
24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action: Recommendations for school mathematics for the 1980s. Reston, VA: Author.
25. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
26. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
29. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2007). Curriculum research brief: Selecting the right curriculum. Reston, VA: Author.
30. Pelletier, S., & Shore, B.M. (2003). The gifted learn, the novice, and the expert: Sharpening emerging views of giftedness. In D. C. Ambrose, L. Cohen, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration (pp. 237-281). New York: Hampton Press.
31. Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning: Induction and analogy in mathematics, Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32. Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
33. Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y.F., Congdon, R., & du Toit, M. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
34. Renzulli, J.S., Leppien, J.H., & Hays, T.S. (2000). The multiple menu model: A practical guide for developing differentiated curriculum. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
35. Robinson, A., Shore, B.M., & Enersen, D.L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
36. Robinson, A., & Stanley, T.D. (1989). Teaching to talent: Evaluating an enriched accelerated mathematics program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 253-267.
37. Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H.C., & McNight, C.C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 525-559. (Pubitemid 44559912)
38. Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (2003). (Ed.) Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39. Sheffield, L.J. (1994). The development of gifted and talented mathematics students and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards (Research Monograph No. 9404). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
40. Sheffield, L.J. (1999). Serving the needs of the mathematically promising. In L. J. Sheffield (Ed.), Developing mathematically promising students (pp. 43-55). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
41. Sheffield, L.J. (Chair), Bennett, J., Berriozabal, M., DeArmond, M., & Wertheimer, R. (1999). Report of the task force on the mathematically promising. In L. J. Sheffield (Ed.), Developing mathematically promising students (pp. 309-316). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
42. Sowell, E.J. (1993). Programs for mathematically gifted students: A review of empirical research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 124-129.
43. Sowell, E.J., Bergwell, L., Zeigler, A.J., & Cartwright, R.M. (1990). Identification and description of mathematically gifted students: A review of empirical research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 147-154.
44. Sriraman, B. (2004). Gifted ninth graders' notions of proof: Investigating parallels in approaches of mathematically gifted students and professional mathematicians. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 267-292. (Pubitemid 40224487)
45. Tieso, C.L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore [Electronic version]. Roeper Review, 26, 29-36.
46. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. (2008). TIMMS 2007 results. Retrieved February 13, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001. pdf
47. Tomlinson, C.A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: One school's journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 77-87.
48. 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.
49. 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, 30-44.
50. Wheatley, G.H. (1983). A mathematics curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 77-80.
51. Wood, T. (1999). Creating context for argument in mathematics class. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 171-191.