The intent of this case study is to understand profoundly gifted students’ perceptions of virtual programs. The participants for this study were five profoundly gifted students who were enrolled in a fully virtual writing course hosted by a school that serves the profoundly gifted population. The researcher gathered data via asynchronous focus groups on an online discussion board, observations of synchronous sessions in their virtual classroom, and individual interviews with the participants. The participants reported a preference for frequent interactions with classmates and the instructor, but expressed concern about the lack of social opportunities. While technical difficulties did occur, these were mostly due to operator error or disuse of available tools. Finally, in terms of curriculum and pedagogy, the participants saw little difference between brick-and-mortar and virtual classrooms, suggesting that for profoundly gifted students, the quality of the content and instruction outweighs the realities of the learning environment. This information can be used either to improve online gifted education, or create new programs, thus diversifying opportunities.
AdamsC. M.CrossT. L. (2000). Distance learning opportunities for academically gifted students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 88-96. doi:10.4219/jsge-1999-618
2.
Adams-ByersJ.WhitsellS. S.MoonS. M. (2004). Gifted students’ perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effect of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 7-20. doi:10.1177/ 001698620404800102
3.
AllenW. E.SeamanJ. (2012). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.
4.
AllyM. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In AndersonT. (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.; pp. 3-31). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Athabasca University Press.
5.
AndersonD. G. (2011). Taking the “distance” out of distance education: A humorous approach to online learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 379-400.
Bouffard-BouchardT. (1993). Self-regulation on a concept-formation task among average and gifted students. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 115-143. doi:10.1006/jecp.1993.1028
CorreyM.IanaconeR.StellaJ. (2014). Understanding online teacher best practices: A thematic analysis to improve learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11, 593-607. doi:10.2304/elea.2014.11.6.593
11.
DauberS. L.BenbowC. P. (1990). Aspects of personality and peer relations of extremely talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 10-14. doi:10.1177/ 00169862900 3400103
12.
DavidJ. (2004). A need for humor in online courses. College Teaching, 52, 93-94. doi:10.3200/CTCH.52.3.93-120
13.
DelcourtM. A. B.EvansK. (1994). Qualitative extension of the learning outcomes study (Research Monograph 94110). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
14.
DiPietroM. (2010). Virtual schooling pedagogy: The instructional practices of K-12 virtual school teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42, 327-354. doi:10.2190/EC.42.3.e
15.
DiPietroM.FerdigR. E.BlackE. W.PrestonM. (2008). Best practices in teaching K-12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan virtual school teachers. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7, 10-35. doi:10.2190/EC.42.3.e
16.
EryilmazM. (2015). The effectiveness of blended learning environments. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 8, 251-256. doi:10.19030/cier.v8i4.9433
GrossM. U. M. (2002). Social and emotional issues for exceptionally intellectually gifted students. In NeihartM.ReisS. M.RobinsonN. M.MoonS. M. (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children (pp. 19-29). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
19.
GrossM. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
20.
HewK. F.CheungW. S. (2013). Use of web 2.0 technologies in K-12 and higher education: The search for evidence-based practice. Educational Research Review, 9, 47-64. doi:org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.08.001
21.
HollingworthL. S. (1942). Children above IQ 180: Their origin and development. New York, NY: World Books.
JeongA. (2004). The combined effects of response time and message content on growth patterns of discussion threads in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Journal of Distance Education, 19, 36-53.
25.
JovanovicA.JankovicA.Markovic JovanovicS.PericV.VitosevicB.PavlovicM. (2015). When going hybrid is not enough: Statistical analysis of effectiveness of blended courses piloted within Tempus BLATT Project. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 11, 138-152.
26.
KerrS. (2011). High school online: Pedagogy, preferences, and practices of three online teachers. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39, 220-244. doi:10.2190/ET.39.3.b
27.
KimmonsR. (2015). Online system adoption and K-12 academic outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 378-391. doi:10.1111/jcal.12101
28.
KulikJ. A.KulikC.-L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77. doi:10.1177/001698629203600204
29.
LandrumM. S.CallahanC. M.ShakleeB. D. (2001). Aiming for excellence: Gifted program standards: Annotations to the NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
30.
LuJ.LiD.StevensC.YeR. (2017). Comparisons and analyses of gifted students’ characteristics and learning methods. Gifted Educational International, 33, 45-61. doi:10.1177/0261429414565160
31.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316-345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
32.
LubinskiD.WebbR. M.MorelockM. J.BenbowC. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718-729. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.718
33.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). 2010 pre-K-grade 12 gifted programming standards. Washington, DC: Author.
34.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author.
35.
NgW.NicholasH. (2007). Conceptualizing the use of online technologies for gifted secondary students. Roeper Review, 29, 190-196. doi:10.1080/02783190709554408
36.
NgW.NicholasH. (2010). A progressive pedagogy for online learning with high-ability secondary students: A case study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 239-251. doi:10.1177/0016986209355973
37.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.CorwithS. (2010). Distance education: Where it started and where it stands for gifted children and their educators. Gifted Child Today, 34(3), 16-24, 64-65. doi:10.1177/107621751103400306
38.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.LeeS. Y. (2004). Gifted adolescents’ talent development through distance learning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 7-35. doi:10.1177/016235320402800102
39.
PeineM. E.ColemanL. J. (2010). The phenomenon of waiting in class. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 220-244.
40.
PiccianoA. G.SeamanJ.SheaP.SwanK. (2011). Examining the extent and nature of online learning in American K-12 education: The research initiatives of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 127-135. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.004
41.
PreckelF.GötzT.FrenzelA. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic self-concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 451-472. doi:10.1348/000709909X480716
42.
RenzulliJ. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 150-159. doi:10.1177/0016986212444901
43.
RiceK. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 425-448. doi:10.1080/15391523.2006. 10782468
44.
RiordanM. A.KreuzzR. J.BlairA. N. (2018). The digital divide: Conveying subtlety in online communication. Journal of Computers in Education, 5, 49-66. doi:10.1007/s40692-018-0100-6
45.
RogersK. B. (2007). Lessons learned about education the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382-396. doi:10.1177/0016986207306324
46.
SandersonE.GreenbergerR. (2010). Evaluating online programs through a gifted lens. Gifted Child Today, 32, 42-53. doi:10.1177/107621751103400311
47.
ShaunessyE. (2007). Attitude towards information technology of teachers of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 119-135. doi:10.1177/0016986207299470
48.
ShieldsC. M. (2002). A comparison study of student attitudes and perceptions in homogeneous and heterogeneous class- rooms. Roeper Review, 24, 115-120.
49.
Steenbergen-HuS.MakelM. C.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K-12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86, 849-899. doi:10.3102/0034654316675417
50.
TerryK. P. (2008). Fostering self-efficacy through time management in an online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7, 195-207.
51.
ThompsonD. (2016). Sarcasm in written communication: Emoticons are efficient markers of intention. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 105-120. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12156
52.
ThomsonD. L. (2010). Beyond the classroom walls: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on how online learning can meet the needs of gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 662-712. doi:10.1177/1932202X1002100405
53.
TreffingerD. J. (1975). Teaching for self-directed learning: A priority for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19, 46-59.
54.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Table 49: Percentage of gifted and talented students in public elementary and secondary schools, by sex, race/ethnicity, and state: 2004 and 2006. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_049.asp
VaiM.SosulskiK. (2016). Essentials of online course design: A standards-based guide. New York, NY: Routledge.
57.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2005). Gifted programs and services: What are the nonnegotiables?Gifted Education, 44, 90-97. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4402_3
58.
VoglK.PreckelF. (2014). Full-time ability grouping of gifted students: Impacts on social self-confidence and school-related attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 511-68. doi:10.1177/0016986213513795
59.
von KárolyiC.WinnerE. (2005). Extreme giftedness. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 52-63). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
60.
WallaceP. (2009). Distance learning for gifted students: Outcomes for elementary, middle, and high school aged students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32, 295-320. doi:10.4219/jeg-2009-855
61.
WaltherJ. B.D’AddarioK. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 324-347. doi:10.1177/089443930101900307
62.
WeberC.SmithD. (2010). Meeting the needs of gifted students through online programs. Distance Learning, 7, 43-50.
63.
WinterJ.CottonD.GavinJ.YorkeJ. D. (2010). Effective e-learning? Multi-tasking, distractions and boundary management by graduate students in an online environment. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 18, 71-83. doi:10.1080/09687761003657598
64.
WulffS.HanorJ.BulikR. (2000). The roles and relationships of presence, reflection and self-directed learning in effective World Wide Web–based pedagogy. In ColeR. (Ed.), Issues in web-based pedagogy: A critical primer (pp. 143-160). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
65.
YangD.OlesovaL.RichardsonJ. C. (2010). Impact of cultural differences on students’ participation, communication, and learning in an online environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43, 165-182. doi:10.2190/EC.43.2.b
66.
YangY.-T. C.NewbyT.BillR. (2008). Facilitation interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: A quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Computers & Education, 50, 1572-1585. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.006
67.
YinR. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
