User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Gifted Child Today > Volume 23 |  Issue 4 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222.
  • Betts, G. T., & Neihart, M. (1986). Implementing self-directed learning models for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 174–177.
  • Boden, M. (1990). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. London: Cardinal.
  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick, Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Davis, B. (1997). Listening for differences: An evolving conception of mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(3), 355–376.
  • Department of Education, Queensland. (1991). Years 1–10 mathematics sourcebook: Year 3. Brisbane, Queensland: Government Printer.
  • Diezmann, C. M. (1999). The effect of instruction on children’s use of diagrams in novel problem solving. Unpublished Dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
  • Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159–199.
  • Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167–180.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., & Hoover, S. M. (1986). A conception of giftedness: Intelligence, self-concept and motivation. Roeper Review, 8, 140–143.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., & Kroll, M. D. (1991). Boredom or challenge for the academically talented in school. Gifted Education International, 7, 80–81.
  • Galbraith, J. (1985). The eight great gripes of gifted kids: Responding to special needs. Roeper Review, 8, 15–18.
  • Gorrell, J., & Capron, E. (1990). Cognitive modeling and self-efficacy: Effects on preservice teachers’ learning of teaching strategies. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 15–22.
  • Greeno, J. G. (1994). Some further observations of the environment/model metaphor. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 94–99.
  • Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 524–549.
  • Hoeflinger, M. (1998). Developing mathematically promising students. Roeper Review, 20, 244–247.
  • House, P. (Ed.)(1987). Providing opportunities for the mathematically gifted K–12. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Johnson, D. T. (1994). Mathematics curriculum for the gifted. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd ed.; pp. 231–261). Boston MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Johnson, M. L. (1983). Identifying and teaching mathematically gifted elementary school students. Arithmetic Teacher, 30(5), 25–26.
  • Lester, F. K., Garofalo, J., & Kroll, D. L. (1989). The role of metacognition in problem solving: A study of two grade seven classes. Final Report [ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 314 255].
  • Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E., & Assouline, S. G. (1994). Evidence of extreme mathematical precocity: Case studies of talented youths. Roeper Review, 16, 144–151.
  • Marjoram, D. T. E. (1992). Teaching able mathematicians in school. Gifted Education International 8, 40–43.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1998). Principles and standards for school mathematics: Discussion draft. Reston, VA: Author.
  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.
  • Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Marano, N. L., Ford, D., & Brown, N. (1997, March). Design principles informing and emerging from a community of practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago IL.
  • Parker, J. P. (1989). Instructional strategies for teaching the gifted. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Polya, G. (1945/1973). How to solve it (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26–33.
  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  • Schraw, G., & Graham, T. (1997). Helping students develop metacognitive awareness. Roeper Review, 20, 4–8.
  • Shore, B. M., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (1996). Effective curricular and program practices in gifted education and the interface with general education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 138–154.
  • Stanley, J. S. (1991). An academic model for educating the mathematically talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 36–42.
  • Taplin, M. (1995). An exploration of persevering students’ management of problem solving strategies. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 17(1), 49–63.
  • Tobias, S. (1982). When do instructional methods make a difference? Educational Researcher, 11, 4–10.
  • Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C. M., Tomchin, E. M., Eiss, N., Imbeau, M., & Landrum, M. (1997). Becoming architects of communities of learning: Addressing academic diversity in contemporary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, 269–282.
  • Vallerand, R. J., Gagné, F., Senécal, C., & Pelletier, L. G. (1994). A comparison of the school intrinsic motivation and perceived competence of gifted and regular students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(4), 172–175.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  • Willard-Holt, C. (1994). Strategies for individualizing instruction in regular classrooms. Roeper Review, 17(1), 43–45.
  • Worcester, D. (1979). Enrichment. In W. George, S. Cohen, & J. Stanley (Eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment (pp. 98–104). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 23
  •  Issue 4
  • Publication Date: July/August 2000



Catering for Mathematically Gifted Elementary Students: Learning from Challenging Tasks

Carmel M. Diezmann and James J. Watters

Boredom is a major concern of gifted students and stems from a lack of challenge in academic tasks and a perception by these students of the limited value of the “learning” experience (Feldhusen & Kroll, 1991; Galbraith, 1985; House, 1987). Academic tasks constitute the “work” of the classroom and, ideally, provide the necessary challenge that affords learning (Doyle, 1983, 1988). A key feature of challenging tasks is their authenticity within a domain. For example, an authentic mathematical task is characterized by its complexity, the obstacle to a ready-made solution, and the need for high-level thinking and reasoning. Thus, challenging mathematical tasks for gifted students should be authentic tasks that provide opportunities for them to emulate the practices of mathematicians, though at a less-sophisticated level. Gifted elementary students recognize the fundamental relationship between the level of challenge of a task and mathematical learning.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.