Abstract
- Arnold, J. (1982). Rhetoric and reform in middle schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 453–456.
- Baum, S., Cooper, C., & Neu, T. (2001). Dual differentiation: An approach for meeting the curricular needs of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 477–490.
- Baum, S., Cooper, C., Neu, T., & Owen, S. V. (1997). Evaluation of Project High Hopes (Project R206A30159–95). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
- Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.
- Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. New York: Vintage Books.
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self: A psychology for the third millennium. New York: HarperCollins.
- Dewey, J. (1967). The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Dixon, J. (1983). The spatial child. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
- Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: BasicBooks.
- Gentry, M., & Neu, T. (1998). Project High Hopes summer institute: Curriculum for developing talent in students with special needs. Roeper Review, 20, 291–296.
- Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (1995), 20 USC Section 1401 et seq.
- Landrum, M. S., Callahan, C. M., & Shaklee, B. D. (Eds.). (2001). Aiming for excellence: Annotations to the NAGC pre-K–grade 12 gifted program standards. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
- Nielsen, E. (2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Recommendations for identification and programming. Exceptionality, 10, 93–111.
- Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
- Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261.
- Renzulli, J. S. (2001). Enriching curriculum for all students. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional Development.
- Renzulli, J. S., Leppien, J., & Hayes, T. (2000). The multiple menu model: A practical guide for developing differentiated curriculum. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
- Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
- Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Treffinger, D. J. (2000). Assessing CPS performances: Practical resources for assessing and documenting creative problem solving outcomes. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
- VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Planning effective curriculum for gifted learners. Denver: Love.
- Weinfeld, R., Barnes-Robinson, L., Jeweler, S., & Shevitz, B. (2002). Academic programs for gifted and talented/learning disabled students. Roeper Review, 24, 226–233.
- West, T. G. (1997). In the mind’s eye: Visual thinkers, gifted people with dyslexia and other learning difficulties, computer images and the ironies of creativity. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
- Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
- Volume 15
- Issue 4
- Publication Date: Summer 2004
Developing Scientific Talent in Students With Special Needs: An Alternative Model for Identification, Curriculum, and Assessment
Carolyn R. Cooper, Susan M. Baum, and Terry W. Neu
Can students with learning and attention difficulties in school actually be talented scientists in disguise? This article presents a model that was highly successful in identifying and developing scientific talent in these special students. The factors that contributed to the success of the model were the following: The emphasis was on helping students become creative producers. The model also featured a strong mentoring component that included role-modeling and problem solving within specific scientific domains and provided students with authentic, discovery-based, experiential, advanced level subject matter of the domain. Finally, the alternate means of assessing student achievement focused on a student’s performance and the product he or she created, rather than on test scores. Students demonstrated their ability to be competitive, collaborative, and to apply problem-solving skills. These performances resulted in the students’ shifting their identity from loser to winner.
Cart Summary
Your cart is empty.