Education and self-regulation of learning for gifted pupils: Systemic design and development

Research Papers in Education

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 1-19

  Mooij, Ton ^a,b  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY OF THE NETHERLANDS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Early education; Education design; Gifted pupils; Information and communication technology; School development; Self regulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011869584     PISSN: 02671522     EISSN: 14701146     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02671520701692551     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Baker, J.A., R. Bridger, and K. Evans. 1998. Models of underachievement among gifted preadolescents: The role of personal, family, and school factors. Gifted Child Quarterly 42: 5-15.
2. Baroody, A.J. 1993. Fostering the mathematical learning of young children. In Handbook of research on the education of young children, ed. B. Spodek, 151-175. New York: Macmillan.
3. Bearne, E., ed. 1996. Differentiation and diversity in the primary school. London: Routledge.
4. Bennathan, M., and M. Boxall. 1996. Effective intervention in primary schools. Nurture groups. London: David Fulton.
5. Bergqvist, K., and R. Säljö. 1998. Construction of curricular content in the individualised age-integrated classroom. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), September 17-20, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
6. Black, P., R. McCormick, M. James, and D. Pedder. 2006. Learning how to learn and assessment for learning: A theoretical inquiry. Research Papers in Education 21: 119-132.
7. Blumenfeld, P., B.J. Fishman, J. Krajcik, R.W. Marx, and E. Soloway. 2000. Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools, Educational Psychologist 35: 149-64.
8. Blumen-Pardo, S. 2002. Effects of a teacher training workshop on creativity, cognition, and school achievement in gifted and non-gifted second-grade students in Lima, Peru. High Ability Studies 13: 47-58.
9. Bowerman, W.R. 1978. Subjective competence: The structure, process and function of self-referent causal attributions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 8: 45-75.
10. Brown, S.W., J.S. Renzulli, E.J. Gubbins, D. Siegle, W. Zhang, and C.-H. Chen. 2005. Assumptions under-lying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly 49: 68-79.
11. Butler-Por, N. 1987. Underachievers in school: Issues and intervention. Chichester: Wiley.
12. Caplan, S.M., C.E. Henderson, J. Henderson, and D.L. Fleming. 2002. Socioemotional factors contributing to adjustment among early-entrance college students. Gifted Child Quarterly 46: 124-134.
13. Chan, D.W., P.C. Cheung, A.S.K. Chan, W.W. Leung, and K. Leung. 2000. Evaluating the Chinese university summer gifted program for junior secondary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education 11: 136-143.
14. Clark, R.E., and F. Estes. 1999. The development of authentic educational technologies. Educational Technology 39, no. 2: 5-16.
15. Colangelo, N., S.G. Assouline, and M.U.M. Gross. 2004. A nation deceived. How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Vols 1 and 2. Iowa City, IA: Univ. of Iowa, International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
16. Collier, G. 1994. Social origins of mental ability. New York: Wiley.
17. Cornell, D.G., M.A.B. Delcourt, L.C. Bland, M.D. Goldberg, and G. Oram. 1994. Low incidence of behav-ior problems among elementary school students in gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 18, no. 1: 4-19.
18. Cronbach, L.J. 1983. Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19. Davis, G.A., and S.B. Rimm. 1985. Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20. Davis, J.A. 1966. The campus as a frog pond: An application of the theory of relative deprivation to career decisions of college men. The American Journal of Sociology 40: 1-10.
21. Delcourt, M.A.B., B.H. Loyd, D.G. Cornell, and M.D. Goldberg. 1994. Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes: Research Monograph 94108. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
22. Durkin, D. 1966. Children who read early. New York: Teachers College Press.
23. Earle, R.S., ed. 2000. Standards for the accreditation of programs in educational communications and instructional technology (ECIT), 4th rev. ed., October 2001. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
24. Ely, D.P. 1999. Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology 39, no. 6: 23-27.
25. Finn-Stevenson, M., and B.M. Stem. 1997. Integrating early-childhood and family-support services with a school improvement process: The Comer-Zigler initiative. The Elementary School Journal 98, no. 1: 51-66.
26. Freeman, J., and B. Josepsson. 2002. A gifted programme in Iceland and its effects. High Ability Studies 13: 35-46.
27. Gallagher, J.J. 1975. Teaching the gifted child. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
28. Gardner, J.W. 1961. Excellence. Can we be equal and excellent too? New York: Harper.
29. Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
30. Grayson, J.P. 2001. The performance of “gifted” high school students in university. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education 31: 121-139.
31. Griffin, S.L., and C.A. Beagles. 2000. Training and performance support systems (TPSS): A case study from needs assessment to return on investment. Educational Technology 40, no. 5: 34-42.
32. Gross, M.U.M. 1992. The use of radical acceleration in cases of extreme intellectual precocity. Gifted Child Quarterly 36: 91-99.
33. Gross, M.U.M. 2004. Radical acceleration. In A nation deceived. How schools hold back America’s brightest students, vol. 2, ed. N. Colangelo, S.G. Assouline, and M.U.M. Gross, 87-96. Iowa City, IA: Univ. of Iowa, International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
34. Heinbokel, A. 1988. Hochbegabte. Erkennen, Probleme, Lösungswege [Gifted persons. Identification, problems, solutions]. Frankfurt: Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung.
35. Heller, K.A., F.J. Monks, R.J. Sternberg, and R.F. Subotnik, eds. 2000. International handbook of gifted-ness and talent. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
36. James, M., P. Black, R. McCormick, D. Pedder, and D. Wiliam. 2006. Learning how to learn, in class-rooms, schools and networks: Aims, design and analysis. Research Papers in Education 21: 101-118.
37. Johnsen, S.K., P.A. Haensly, G.R. Ryser, and R.F. Ford. 2002. Changing general education classroom practices to adapt for gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly 46: 45-63.
38. Kalyuga, S., P. Ayres, P. Chandler, and J. Sweller. 2003. The expertise reversal shift. Educational Psychologist 38: 23-31.
39. Kemp, J.E. 2000. An interactive guidebook for designing education in the 21st century. Bloomington, IN: Technos press of the Agency for Instructional Technology (AIT)/Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT).
40. Kensing, F., J. Simonsen, and K. Bodker. 1998. MUST: A method for participatory design. Human-Computer Interaction 13: 167-198.
41. Kerry, T., and A. Kerry. 1997. Differentiation: Teachers’ views of the usefulness of recommended strategies in helping the more able pupils in primary and secondary classrooms. Educational Studies 23: 439-457.
42. Khatena, J. 1982. Educational psychology of the gifted. New York: Wiley.
43. King, E., A.A. O’Shea, L.I. Joy Patyk, L.A. Popp, T. Runions, J. Shearer, and R.T. Hendren. 1985. Programming for the gifted. Ontario: Ministry of Education.
44. Kirschner, P.A. 2002. Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affordances for learn-ing. In Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? Ed. P.A. Kirschner, W. Jochems, P. Dillenbourg, and G. Kanselaar, 7-47. Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open Univ.
45. Kliewer, C., L M. Fitzgerald, J. Meyer-Mork, P. Hartman, P. English-Sand, and D. Raschke. 2004. Citizenship for all in the literate community: An ethnography of young children with significant disabilities in inclusive early childhood settings. Harvard Educational Review 74: 373-402.
46. Kounin, J.S. 1970. Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
47. Kulik, J.A. 2004. Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In A nation deceived. How schools hold back America’s brightest students, vol. 2, ed. N. Colangelo, S.G. Assouline, and M.U.M. Gross, 13-22. Iowa City, IA: Univ. of Iowa, International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
48. Landrum, M.S. 2001. An evaluation of the catalyst program: Consultation and collaboration in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly 45: 139-151.
49. Lloyd, L. 1999. Multi-age classes and high ability students. Review of Educational Research 69: 187-212.
50. Lubinski, D. 2004. Long-term effects of educational acceleration. In A nation deceived. How schools hold back America’s brightest students, vol. 2, ed. N. Colangelo, S.G. Assouline, and M.U.M. Gross, 23-37. Iowa City, IA: Univ of Iowa, International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
51. Mangione, P.K., and T. Speth. 1998. The transition to elementary school: A framework for creating early childhood continuity through home, school, and community partnerships. The Elementary School Journal 98: 381-397.
52. Marsh, H.W., D. Chessor, R. Craven, and L. Roche. 1995. The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal 32: 285-319.
53. Marshall, B., and M.J. Drummond. 2006. How teachers engage with assessment for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education 21: 133-149.
54. Matthews, D.J., and J.F. Foster. 2005. A dynamic scaffolding model of teacher development: The gifted education consultant as catalyst for change. Gifted Child Quarterly 49: 222-230.
55. Mehlhorn, H.-G. 1988. Personlichkeitsentwicklung Hochbegabter [Personality development of gifted persons]. Berlin: Volk und Wissen Volkseigener Verlag.
56. Meijer, C.J.W., ed. 2003. Inclusive education and classroom practices. Summary report, European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. http://www.european-agency.org.
57. Mönks, F.J., K.A. Heller, and A.H. Passow. 2000. The study of giftedness: Reflections on where we are and where we are going. In International handbook of giftedness and talent, ed. K.A. Heller, F.J. Monks, R.J. Sternberg, and R.F. Subotnik, 839-63. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
58. Mooij, T. 1992. Predicting (under)achievement of gifted children. European Journal for High Ability 3: 59-74.
59. Mooij, T. 1999. Integrating gifted children into kindergarten by improving educational processes. Gifted Child Quarterly 43: 63-74.
60. Mooij, T. 2000. Screening children’s entry characteristics in kindergarten. Early Child Development and Care, 165: 23-40.
61. Mooij, T. 2004. Optimising ICT effectiveness in instruction and learning: Multilevel transformation theory and a pilot project in secondary education. Computers & Education 42: 25-44.
62. Mooij, T. 2007. Design of educational and ICT conditions to integrate differences in learning: Contextual learning theory and a first transformation step in early education. Computers in Human Behavior 23: 1499-530.
63. Mooij, T., and E. Smeets. 2006. Design, development and implementation of inclusive education. European Educational Research Journal 5: 94-109.
64. Moon, S.M., and S.M. Reis. 2004. Acceleration and twice-exceptional students. In A nation deceived. How schools hold back America’s brightest students, vol. 2, ed. N. Colangelo, S.G. Assouline, and M.U.M. Gross, 109-119. Iowa City, IA: Univ of Iowa, International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
65. Neber, H., and K.A. Heller. 2002. Evaluation of a summer-school program for highly gifted secondary-school students: The German Pupils Academy. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 18: 214-228.
66. Neber, H., and M. Schommer-Aikins. 2002. Self-regulated science learning with highly gifted students: The role of cognitive, motivational, epistemological, and environmental variables. High Ability Studies 13: 59-74.
67. Noble, K.D., N.M. Robinson, and S.A. Gunderson. 1993. All rivers lead to the sea: A follow-up study of gifted young adults. Roeper Review 15: 124-130.
68. Paas, F., A. Renkl, and J. Sweller. 2003. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent develop-ments. Educational Psychologist 38: 1-4.
69. Pendarvis, E.D., A.A. Howley, and C.B. Howley. 1990. The abilities of gifted children. London: Prentice-Hall.
70. Purcell, J.H., D.E. Burns, C.A. Tomlinson, M.B. Imbeau, and J.L. Martin. 2002. Bridging the gap: A tool and technique to analyze and evaluate gifted education curricular units. Gifted Child Quarterly 46: 306-321.
71. Reis, S.M., K.L. Westberg, J.M. Kulikowich, and J.H. Purcell. 1998. Curriculum compacting and achieve-ment test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly 42: 123-129.
72. Remillard, J.T. 2000. Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal 100: 331-350.
73. Renzulli, J.S. 1990. A practical system for identifying gifted and talented students. Early Child Development and Care 63: 9-18.
74. Renzulli, J.S., and S.M. Reis. 2000. The schoolwide enrichment model. In International handbook of giftedness and talent, ed. K.A. Heller, F.J. Monks, R.J. Sternberg, and R.F. Subotnik, 367-81. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
75. Révész, G. 1952. Talent und Genie. Grundzüge einer Begabungspsychologie [Talent and genius. Foun-dations of apsychology of the gifted]. Bem, Switzerland: Francke.
76. Robinson, N.M. 2004. Effects of academic acceleration on the social-emotional status of gifted students. In A nation deceived. How schools hold backAmerica’s brightest students, vol. 2, ed. N. Colangelo, S.G. Assouline, and M.U.M. Gross, 59-67. Iowa City, IA: Univ. of Iowa, International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
77. Rogers, K.B. 2004. The academic effects of acceleration. In A nation deceived. How schools hold back America’s brightest students, vol. 2, ed. N. Colangelo, S.G. Assouline, and M.U.M. Gross, 47-57. Iowa City, IA: Univ. of Iowa, International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
78. Rosenshine, B., and C. Meister. 1992. The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership 49: 26-33.
79. Sinko, M., and E. Lehtinen. 1999. The challenges of ICT in Finnish education. Jyväskylä, Finland: Atena.
80. Sternberg, R.J., and E.L. Grigorenko. 2002. The theory of successful intelligence as a basis for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly 46: 265-277.
81. van den Boom, G., F. Paas, J.J.G. van Merriënboer, and T. van Gog. 2004. Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: Effects on students’ self-regulated learning compe-tence. Computers in Human Behavior 20: 551-67.
82. van Eijl, P.J., H. Wientjes, M.V.C. Wolfensberger, and A. Pilot. 2005. Het uitdagen van talent in het onder-wijs [Challenging talent in education]. In Onderwijs in thema’s, Onderwijsraad, 117-156. The Hague: Author.
83. van Merriënboer, J.J.G. 1999. Cognition and multimedia design for complex learning. Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open Univ.
84. van Merriënboer, J.J.G., P.A. Kirschner, and L. Kester. 2003. Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist 38: 5-13.
85. VanTassel-Baska, J., G. Bass, R. Ries, D. Poland, and L.D. Avery. 1998. A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly 42: 200-211.
86. Watkins, A. 2001. Information and communication technology (ICT) in special needs education (SNE). European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. http://www.european-agency.org.
87. Westberg, K.L., and F.X. Archambault. 1997. A multi-site case study of successful classroom practices for high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly 41: 42-51.
88. Wilson, B.G. 1999. Evolution of learning technologies: From instructional design to performance support to network systems. Educational Technology 39, no. 2: 32-35.
89. Wood, D., J.S. Bruner, and G. Ross. 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17: 89-100.
90. Zeidner, M., and E.J. Schleyer. 1999. Evaluating the effects of full-time vs part-time educational programs for the gifted: Affective outcomes and policy considerations. Evaluation and Program Planning 22: 413-427.
91. Ziegler, A., M. Finsterwald, and R. Grassinger. 2005. Predictors of learned helplessness among average and mildly gifted girls and boys attending initial high school physics instruction in Germany. Gifted Child Quarterly 49: 7-18.