User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 29 |  Issue 1 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadsy, P. F. (1998). Cooperative learning: Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relation between research and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 419–454.
  • Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Kikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Patrick, H., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Teaching for understanding. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching. Volume II (pp. 819–878). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37–40.
  • Bossert, S. T. (1988–1989). Cooperative activities in the classroom. Review of Research in Education, 15, 225–250.
  • Boyce, L. N., VanTassel-Baska, J., Burruss, J. D., Sher, B. T., & Johnson, D. T. (1997). A problem-based curriculum: Parallel learning opportunities for students and teachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 363–379.
  • Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. D. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • California Department of Education. (1997). California standards for the teaching profession. Retrieved January 29, 2004, from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/cstpreport.pdf.
  • Chapman, M., & McBride, M. L. (1992). The education of reason: Cognitive conflict and its role in intellectual development. In C. U. Shantz & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent development (pp. 36–69). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1991). Unfair expectations: A pilot study of middle school students’ comparisons of gifted and regular classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 56–63.
  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
  • De Lisi, R. & Golbeck, S. L. (1999). Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 3–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391–450.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., & Kolloff, P. B. (1986). The Purdue three-stage enrichment model for gifted education at the elementary level. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 126–152). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students: Issues and concerns. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 63–67.
  • Gallagher, S. A. (1997). Problem-based learning: Where did it come from, what does it do, and where is it going? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 332–362.
  • Hickey, D. T., Moore, A. L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 38, 611–652.
  • Hogan, D. M., & Tudge, J. R. H. (1999). Implications of Vygotsky’s theory for peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 39–65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. A report of Carnegie Corporation of New York. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1974). Instructional goal structure: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44, 213–240.
  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Buckman, L. A., & Richards, P. S. (1985). The effect of prolonged implementation of cooperative learning on social support within the classroom. The Journal of Psychology, 119, 405–411.
  • Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R. T., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47–62.
  • Johnson, D. W., Skon, L., & Johnson, R. (1980). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic conditions on children’s problem-solving performance. American Educational Research Journal, 17, 83–93.
  • Kenny, D. A., Archambault, F. X., & Hallmark, B. W. (1995). The effect of group composition on gifted and non-gifted elementary students in cooperative learning groups. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Li, A. K. F., & Adamson, G. (1992). Gifted secondary students’ preferred learning style: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 46–54.
  • Lucker, G. W., Rosenfield, D., Sikes, J., & Aronson, E. (1976). Performance in the interdependent classroom: A field study. American Educational Research Journal, 13, 115–123.
  • Matthews, M. (1992). Gifted students talk about cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 5(2), 48–50.
  • Matthews, M. (1993). Meaningful cooperative learning is key. Educational Leadership, 50(6), 64.
  • Meloth, M. S., & Deering, P. D. (1999). The role of the teacher in promoting cognitive processing during collaborative learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 235–255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Midgley, C. (1993). Motivation and middle level schools. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Volume 8: Motivation and adolescent development (pp. 217–274). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  • National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author.
  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Neber, H., Finsterwald, M., & Urban, N. (2001). Cooperative learning with gifted and high-achieving students: A review and meta-analyses of 12 studies. High Ability Studies, 12, 199–214.
  • Nelson, S. M., Gallagher, J. J., & Coleman, M. R. (1993). Cooperative learning from two different perspectives. Roeper Review, 16, 117–121.
  • O’Donnell, A. M., & O’Kelly, J. (1994). Learning from peers: Beyond the rhetoric of positive results. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 321–349.
  • Ormrod, J. E. (2003). Educational psychology: Developing learners (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  • Parr, J. M., & Townsend, M. A. R. (2002). Environments, processes and mechanisms in peer learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 403–423.
  • Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.
  • Robinson, A. (1990a). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9–27.
  • Robinson, A. (1990b). Response to Slavin: Cooperation, consistency, and challenge for academically talented youth. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 31–36.
  • Robinson, A. (1991). Cooperative learning and the academically talented student. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
  • Robinson, A. (2003). Cooperative learning and high ability students. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 282–292). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Sapon-Shevin, M., & Schniedewind, N. (1993). Why (even) gifted children need cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 50(6), 62–63.
  • Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 410–422.
  • Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right . . . if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18, 461–494.
  • Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241–271.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315–342.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429–445.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1990a). Ability grouping, cooperative learning and the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 3–8.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1990b). Cooperative learning and the gifted: Who benefits? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 28–30.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning, Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71–82.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Characteristics and needs of talented learners. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed., pp. 173–192). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners: An introduction. In J. VanTassel-Baska & C. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (pp. 1–24). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  • Webb, N. (1983). Predicting learning from student interaction: Defining the interaction variables. Educational Psychologist, 18, 33–41.
  • Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Simon & Schuster.
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 29
  •  Issue 1
  • Publication Date: Fall 2005



Reconsidering the Issue of Cooperative Learning With Gifted Students

Helen Patrick, Nancy J. Bangel, Kyung-Nam Jeon, & Michael A. R. Townsend

This paper addresses the discussion regarding whether or not cooperative learning methods are good for gifted students by considering the processes of task-related interaction within different cooperative structures. Differences and similarities in the nature and type of task-related interactions that are promoted by different cooperative learning structures are discussed. Furthermore, the congruence between the types of student interaction that are promoted by different structures and theories of how students learn are considered. The implications of these points for gifted students are addressed. Finally, it is suggested that collaborative learning—an extension of cooperative group structures that is premised on social-constructivist theories of learning—can provide rich learning opportunities for gifted students in mixed-ability groupings.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.