Curriculum for highly able learners that conforms to general education and gifted education quality indicators

Journal for the Education of the Gifted

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 394-440

  Hockett, Jessica A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 68149158835     PISSN: 01623532     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4219/jeg-2009-857     Document Type: Article

References (112)

1. Abrams, L. M., Pedulla, J. J., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers' opinions of statewide testing programs. ory Into Practice, 42(1), 18-32.
2. Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (Research Monograph No. 93102). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
3. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
5. Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press.
6. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (Eds.). (1983). Academic precocity: Aspects of its development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
7. Betts, G. (1985). The Autonomous Learner Model for the gifted and talented. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 27-56). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
8. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1954). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
9. Board on Science Education, & Center for Education. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
10. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231-268.
11. Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.
12. Boyce, L. N. (1997). A guide to teaching research skills and strategies for grades 4-12. Williamsburg, VA: The College of William and Mary, Center for Gifted Education.
13. Brighton, C. M., Hertberg, H. L., Moon, T. R., Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2005). The feasibility of high-end learning in a diverse middle school (Research Monograph No. 05210). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
14. Brown, E., Avery, L., VanTassel-Baska, J., Worley, B. B., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). A five-state analysis of gifted education policies. Roeper Review, 29, 11-23.
15. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Vintage.
16. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: Norton.
17. Callahan, C. M. (2005). An evaluation of Project CONN-Cept. Unpublished report, University of Virginia.
18. Center for Civic Education. (1994). National standards for civics and government. Calabasas, CA: Author.
19. Center for Gifted Education. (1997). Electricity City: A problembased unit. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
20. Center for Gifted Education. (1998). Persuasion: A language arts unit for high-ability learners. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
21. Clarenbach, J. (2007). All gifted is local. The School Administrator, 64(2), 16-21.
22. Desimone, L. M., Smith, T., Baker, D., & Ueno, K. (2005). Assessing barriers to reform of U. S. mathematics instruction from an international perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 501-536.
23. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
24. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan/Collier.
25. English, F. (2000). Deciding what to teach and test: Developing, aligning, and auditing the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
26. Erickson, H. L. (2002). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond the facts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
27. Feldhusen, J. (Ed.). (1985). Toward excellence in gifted education. Denver, CO: Love.
28. Feldhusen, J. F., & Kolloff, M. B. (1979). A three-stage model for gifted education. G/C/T, 1(4), 3-5, 53-58.
29. Feng, A. X., VanTassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., Bai, W., & O'Neill, B. (2005). A longitudinal assessment of gifted students' learning using the Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM): Impacts and perceptions of the William and Mary language arts and science curriculum. Roeper Review, 27, 78-83.
30. Fowler, M. (1990). The diet cola test. Science Scope, 13(4), 32-34.
31. Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
32. Gallagher, J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 5-12.
33. Gallagher, J. J. (2005). National security and educational excellence. Education Week, 24(38), 32-33, 40.
34. Gentry, M. (2006). No child left behind: Neglecting excellence. Roeper Review, 29, 24-27.
35. Geography Education Standards Project. (1994). Geography for life: National geography standards 1994. Washington, DC: National Geographic Research & Exploration.
36. Goodlad, J. I. (1964). School curriculum reform in the United States. New York: The Fund for the Advancement of Education.
37. Hayes-Jacobs, H., & Borland, J. H. (1986). The interdisciplinary concept model: Theory and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 159-163.
38. Illinois State Board of Education. (2001). Illinois learning standards. Retrieved November 6, 2006, from http://www.isbe.net/ils
39. Kaplan, S. N. (1974). Providing programs for the gifted and talented: A handbook. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools.
40. Kaplan, S. N. (1979). Inservice training manual: Activities for developing curriculum for the gifted/talented. Ventura, CA: Office of Superintendent of Ventura County Schools.
41. Kaplan, S. N. (1986). The grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 180-193). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
42. Kaplan, S. N. (1994). Differentiating the core curriculum to provide advanced learning opportunities. Sacramento: California Association for the Gifted.
43. Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (2004). Content knowledge: A compendium of standards and benchmarks for K-12 education. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved September 25, 2006, from http://www.mcrel.org/standards-benchmarks
44. Kliebard, H. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958 (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
45. Landrum, M. S., Callahan, C. M., & Shaklee, B. D. (2001). Aiming for excellence: Annotations to the NAGCK-12program standards. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
46. Landrum, M. S., & Shaklee, B. (Eds.). (2000). NAGC pre-K-grade 12 gifted program standards. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
47. Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corporation.
48. Maker, C. J. (1986). Developing scope and sequence in curriculum. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 151-158.
49. Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
50. Marzano, R., Kendall, J., & Gaddy, B. (1999). Essential knowledge: The debate over what American students should know. Aurora, CO: McREL.
51. Mills, C. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: Teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 272-281.
52. Moon, T. R., Brighton, C. B., & Callahan, C. M. (2003). State standardized testing programs: Friend or foe of gifted education? Roeper Review, 25, 49-60.
53. Moon, T. R., Callahan, C. M., Tomlinson, C. A., & Miller, E. M. (2002). Middle school teachers' reported practices and student perceptions (Research Monograph No. 02164). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
54. Moon, T. R., Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1995). Academic diversity in the middle school: Results of a national survey of middle school administrators and teachers (Research Monograph No. 95124). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
55. Murdock, A. (2006). Real patriot games: A unit study on intelligence and espionage based on the Multiple Menu Model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
56. National Association for Gifted Children. (1994). Position paper: Differentiation of curriculum and instruction. Washington, DC: Author.
57. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8. Washington, DC: Author.
58. National Center for History in the Schools. (1996). National standards for history. Los Angeles: Author.
59. National Council of Teachers of English, & The International Reading Association. (2000). Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL: Author.
60. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
61. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curricular focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author.
62. National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for the social studies. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
63. National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author.
64. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
65. National Research Council. (1998). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
66. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
67. No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U. S. C. §6301(2001).
68. Passow, A. H. (1955). Planning for talented youth: Considerations for public schools. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia.
69. Passow, A. H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented: A point of view. In S. Kaplan, A. H. Passow, P. H. Phenix, S. Reis, J. S. Renzulli, I. Sato, et al. (Eds.), Curricula for the gifted (pp. 1-21). Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted/Talented.
70. Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Rohnert Park, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
71. Phenix, P. (1964). Realms of meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
72. Purcell, J. H., Burns, D. E., Tomlinson, C. A., Imbeau, M. B., & Martin, J. L. (2002). Bridging the gap: A tool and technique to analyze and evaluate gifted education curricular units. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 306-321.
73. Quigley, C. N. (2005). The civic mission of the schools: What constitutes an effective civic education? Retrieved October 18, 2006, from http://www.civiced.org/articles.php
74. Reis, S. M. (2007). No child left bored. The School Administrator, 64(2), 22-26.
75. 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.
76. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
77. Renzulli, J. S. (1982). What makes a problem real: Stalking the illusive meaning of qualitative differences in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 4, 147-155.
78. Renzulli, J. S. (1988). The Multiple Menu Model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 298-309.
79. Renzulli, J. S. (1997). The Multiple Menu Model: A successful marriage for integrating content and process. NASSP Bulletin, 81(587), 51-58.
80. Renzulli, J. S. (2005). A quiet crisis is clouding the future of R & D. Education Week, 24(38), 32-33, 40.
81. Renzulli, J. S., Leppien, J. H., & Hays, T. (2000). The Multiple Menu Model: A critical guide for developing differentiated curriculum. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
82. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
83. Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: How parents and teachers can match the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
84. Schmidt, W. H. (Ed.). (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U. S. science and mathematics education. Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
85. Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York: Teachers College Press.
86. Solomon, P. G. (1998). The curriculum bridge: From standards to actual classroom practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
87. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
88. Tomlinson, C. (1997). Good teaching for one and all: Does gifted education have an instructional identity? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 155-174.
89. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
90. Tomlinson, C. A. (2002). Proficiency is not enough. Education Week, 22(10), 36, 38.
91. Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory Into Practice, 44, 160-166.
92. Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1992). Contributions of gifted education to general education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 183-189.
93. Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., & Hedrick, K. (2005). Ascending intellectual demand within and beyond the Parallel Curriculum Model. In C. A. Tomlinson, S. N. Kaplan, J. H. Purcell, J. H. Leppien, D. E. Burns, & C. A. Strickland (Eds.), The parallel curriculum in the classroom, Book 1: Essays for application across the content area, K-12 (pp. 80-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
94. Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Purcell, J. H., Leppien, J. H., Burns, D. E., & Strickland, C. A. (2005). The Parallel Curriculum Model in the classroom, Book 2: Units for application across the content areas. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
95. 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. Washington, DC: Corwin Press.
96. Tyler, R. W. (1969). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
97. United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America s talent. Washington, DC: Author.
98. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instructional models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 164-169.
99. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1989) Appropriate curriculum for gifted learners. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 13-15.
100. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). Curriculum for the gifted: An overview of theory, research, and practice. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd ed., pp. 1-16). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
101. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1995). The development of talent through curriculum. Roeper Review, 18, 98-102.
102. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Appropriate curriculum for the talented learner. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed., pp. 339-361). Denver, CO: Love. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Gifted programs and services: What are the non-negotiables? Theory Into Practice, 44, 90-97.
103. VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L. D., Little, C. M., & Hughes, C. (2000). An evaluation of the implementation of curriculum innovation: The impact of the William and Mary units in schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 244-272.
104. VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G. M., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. D. (1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200-211.
105. VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D. T., Hughes, C., & Boyce, L. N. (1996). A study of language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 461-480.
106. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Little, C. (Ed.). (2003). Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
107. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44, 211-217.
108. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Project Athena: A pathway to advanced literacy development for children of poverty. Gifted Child Today, 29(2), 58-63.
109. 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.
110. Ward, V. S. (1961). Educating the gifted: An axiomatic approach. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
111. Ward, V. S. (1980). Differential education of the gifted. Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute for the Gifted and Talented.
112. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.