Abstract
- Chalfant, J. C., & Van Dusen Pysh, M. (1993). Teacher assistance teams: Implications for the gifted. In C. J. Maker (Ed.), Critical issues in gifted education: Vol. 3. Programs for the gifted in regular classrooms (pp. 32–48). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
- Dettmer, P., & Landrum, M. (1998). Staff development: The key to effective gifted education programs. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
- Gallagher, J. J., & Gallagher, S. A. (1994). Teaching the gifted child (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
- Gallagher, J. J., Harradine, C. C., & Coleman, M. R. (1997). Challenge or boredom? Gifted students’ views on their schooling. Roeper Review, 19, 132–136.
- Gehrke, N. J., Knapp, M. S., & Sirotnik, K. A. (1992). In search of the school curriculum. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education: Vol. 18 (pp. 51–110). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
- Goodlad, J. I. (1983). Individuality, commonality, and curricular practice. In G. D. Fenstermacher & J. I. Goodlad (Eds.), Eighty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Part I. Individual differences and the common curriculum (pp. 300–318). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Kirschenbaum, R. J., Armstrong, D. C., & Landrum, M. S. (1999). Resource consultation model in gifted education to support talent development in today’s inclusive schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 39–47.
- Landrum, M. S. (2001a). An evaluation of the Catalyst Program: Consultation and collaboration in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 139–151.
- Landrum, M. S. (2001b). Resource consultation and collaboration in gifted education. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 457–466.
- Landrum, M. S. (2002). Consultation in gifted education: Teachers working together to serve students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
- National Association for Gifted Children. (1994, June). Differentiation of curriculum and instruction. Washington, DC: Author.
- Piirto, J. (1998). Talented children and adults: Their development and education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
- Smutny, J. F., & Blocksom, R. H. (1990). Education of the gifted: Programs and perspectives. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
- Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in educating gifted & talented learners (3rd ed.). Denver, CO: Love.
- Westberg, K. L., & Archambault, F. X., Jr. (1997). A multi-site case study of successful classroom practices for high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 42–51.
- Winebrenner, S. (2000). Gifted students need an education, too. Educational Leadership, 58, 52–56.
- Zaccaro, E. (2000). Challenge math for the elementary and middle school student. Bellevue, IA: Hickory Grove Press.
- Volume 27
- Issue 4
- Publication Date: Summer 2004
A Case Study of the Collaboration in Mathematics Between a Fourth-Grade Teacher and a Talented and Gifted Coordinator
Janine Kane & John E. Henning
The purpose of this case study was to describe how a 4th-grade teacher and a TAG coordinator collaborated to improve services for advanced learners without the support of university faculty and with limited resources. Interviews, questionnaires, transcriptions of videotaped consultation sessions, and observations of classroom instruction showed that participants coplanned lessons, utilized collaborative teaching, and developed a close rapport. Service was provided directly through a pull-out model that offered little in the way of training the teacher for differentiating the curriculum. Moving to a more indirect model of service would require better communication of role and goal expectations between the two participants. However, given the shortage of resources in many schools and the highly competitive demands for time during the school day, implementation is “a long road” that is likely to be traversed over an extended time period.
Cart Summary
Your cart is empty.