This study involved 15 secondary-level teachers who taught fast-paced classes at a university-based summer program and similar regularly paced classes in their local schools in order to examine how teachers differentiate or modify instructional methods and content selections for fast-paced classes. Interviews were conducted with the teachers during the summer sessions with a brief survey used as supplemental data. Overall, teachers in this study used a varied set of instructional strategies and in-class activities for their fast-paced classes including lectures, presentations, group activities, demonstrations, frequent tests and quizzes, timed writing, essays, and discussion. The shorter time frame (3 weeks versus 9 months) and teachers’ perceptions about students’ academic abilities were the two major reasons given for the differentiated instructional strategies and content in the fast-paced classes. In the survey data, less repetition in course content, advanced-level readings and questions, and more independence in learning were found for the fast-paced classes. Yet, the teachers were not likely to move beyond the textbook for enrichment materials or individualize homework or assignments for students in their fast-paced classes. They also expressed concerns regarding depth versus breadth of the material covered in the 3-week courses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Zhang, W., & Emmons, C. L. (1993). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 103-119.
2.
Avery, L. D., VanTassel-Baska, J., & O’Neill, B. (1997). Making evaluation work: One school district’s experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 124-132.
3.
Barnett, L. B., & Durden, W. G. (1993). Education patterns of academically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 161-168.
4.
Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How effective are they for the gifted?Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 105-110.
5.
Dunn, R. (1993). Teaching gifted adolescents through their learning style strengths. In R. M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G. E. Price (Eds.), Teaching and counseling gifted and talented adolescents: An international learning style perspective (pp. 37-67). Westport, CT: Praeger.
6.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1989). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
7.
Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., & Price, G. E. (1993). The learning styles of gifted adolescents in the United States. In R. M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G. E. Price (Eds.), Teaching and counseling gifted and talented adolescents: An international learning style perspective (pp. 119-136). Westport, CT: Praeger.
8.
Enersen, D. L. (1993). Summer residential programs: Academics and beyond. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 169-176.
9.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1989, March/April). Why the public schools will continue to neglect the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 55-59.
10.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill.
11.
Griggs, S. A. (1984). Counseling the gifted and talented based on learning styles. Exceptional Children, 50, 429-432.
12.
Griggs, S. A. (1985). Counseling students through their individual learning styles. Ann Arbor, MI: Educational Resource Information Center for Counseling and Personnel Services.
13.
Hertzog, N. B. (2003). Impact of gifted programs from the students’ perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 131-143.
14.
Hutchinson, S. A. (1990). Education and grounded theory. In R. Sherman & R. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods (pp. 123-140). London: Falmer.
15.
Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspective: Research-based decision making series. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
16.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54, 409-426.
17.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1991). Ability grouping and gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 178-196). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
18.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.
19.
Lynch, S. J. (1992). Fast-paced high school science for the academically talented: A six-year perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 147-154.
20.
Milgram, R. M., & Dunn, R. (1993). Identifying learning styles and creativity in gifted learners: Subjects, instrumentation, administration, reliability, validity. In R. M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G. E. Price (Eds.), Teaching and counseling gifted and talented adolescents: An international learning style perspective (pp. 25-36). Westport, CT: Praeger.
21.
Milgram, R. M., Dunn, R., & Price, G. E. (Eds.). (1993). Teaching and counseling gifted and talented adolescents: An international learning style perspective. Westport, CT: Praeger.
22.
Mills, C. J., Ablard, K. E., & Lynch, S. J. (1992). Academically talented students’ preparation for advanced-level course-work after individually-paced precalculus class. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 3-17.
23.
Olenchak, F. R., & Renzulli, J. S. (1989). The effectiveness of the schoolwide enrichment model on selected aspects of elementary school change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 36-46.
24.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2003). Special summer and Saturday programs for gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 219-228). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
25.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Grant, B. (1996). Academically talented women and mathematics: The role of special programs and support from others on acceleration, achievement, and aspirations. In K. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women (pp. 281-294). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
26.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. M., Kulieke, M. J., & Krasney, N. (1988). Personality dimensions of gifted adolescents: A review of the empirical literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 347-352.
27.
Perrin, J. (1984). An experimental investigation of the relationships among the learning style sociological preferences of gifted and nongifted primary children, selected instructional strategies, attitudes, and achievement in problem solving and rote memorization. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 342A.
28.
Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
29.
Reis, S. M., & Purcell, J. H. (1993). An analysis of content elimination and strategies used by elementary classroom teachers in the curriculum compacting process. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 147-170.
30.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Using curriculum compacting to challenge the above-average. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 51-57.
31.
Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hébert, T. P., Plucker, J., et al. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January?: The curriculum compacting study. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.
32.
Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school involvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
33.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
34.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1994). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 7-20.
35.
Renzulli, J. S., & Smith, L. H. (1978). The compactor. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
36.
Ricca, J. (1983). Curricular implications of learning style differences between gifted and nongifted students. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
37.
Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner: Research-based decision making series. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Connecticut.
38.
Silverman, L. K. (1997). Family counseling with the gifted. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 382-397). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
39.
Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Stanley, J. C. (1993). Acceleration and enrichment: The context and development of program options. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 387-409). New York: Pergamon.
40.
Stewart, E. D. (1979). Learning styles among gifted/talented students: Preferences for instructional techniques. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
41.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1992). Contributions of gifted education to general education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 183-189.
42.
Tomlinson, C. A., Coleman, M. R., Allan, S., Udall, A., & Landrum, M. (1996). Interface between gifted education and general education: Toward communication, cooperation, and collaboration. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 165-171.
43.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Educational decision making on acceleration and grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 68-72.
44.
Ward, S. B., & Landrum, M. S. (1994). Resource consultation: An alternative service delivery model for gifted education. Roeper Review, 16, 276-279.
45.
Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120-146.
