During 3 field experience visits, 23 elementary preservice teachers implemented mathematical problem-solving tasks with grade 3–6 gifted students. Researchers investigated what the teachers learned about gifted students regarding student characteristics, mathematical problem-solving tasks, and pedagogy. Each teacher completed a pre- and post-journal, detailing what they expected to occur and then describing what occurred and how their initial expectations were altered. Further, no training was provided regarding gifted students or conceptions of giftedness in previous course-work. Researchers found that teachers broadened their view of giftedness, recognized the need to adapt instruction for gifted students, made efforts to align problem-solving tasks with gifted students' readiness and interests, realized the necessity of knowing students to differentiate instruction, and emphasized student-centered instruction. These results contribute to the promise of having preservice teachers engage in a field experience with gifted students to supplement discussions about gifted education in methods courses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BainS. K.BlissS. L.ChoateS. M.Sager-BrownK. (2007). Serving children who are gifted: Perceptions of undergraduates planning to become teachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 450–478
2.
BalkaD. (1974). Creative ability in mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 21, 633–636
3.
BangelN.EnersenD. J.CapobiancoB.MoonS. M. (2006). Professional development of preservice teachers: Teaching in the Super Saturday Program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 339–361
4.
BéginJ.GagnéF. (1994a). Predictors of attitudes toward gifted education: A review of the literature and blueprints for future research. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 161–179
5.
BéginJ.GagnéF. (1994b). Predictors of a general attitude toward gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 74–86
6.
BusseT. V.DahmeG.WagnerH.WieczerkowskiW. (1986). Teacher perceptions of highly gifted students in the United States and West Germany. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 55–60
7.
ChamberlinS. A. (2002). Analysis of interest during and after model-eliciting activities: A comparison of gifted and general population students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 2379
8.
ChamberlinS. A. (2006). Gifted and talented teachers' and coordinators' perspectives of affect and mathematical problem solving in middle grade gifted programs in the United States. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 15, 32–38
9.
ChamberlinS. A.MoonS. (2005). Model-eliciting activities: An introduction to gifted education. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 37–47
10.
ChamberlinS. A.MooreA. (2006). Cognizance of gifted education among elementary education professors in MCREL member states. Roeper Review, 29, 49–54
11.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students (Vol. 2). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development
12.
DeizmannC. M.WattersJ. (2001). The collaboration of mathematically gifted students on challenging tasks. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 7–31
13.
DeizmannC. M.WattersJ. (2005). Catering for mathematically gifted elementary students: Learning from challenging tasks. In JohnsenS. K.KendrickJ. (Eds.), Math education for gifted students (pp. 33–46). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press
14.
DeLacyM. (2004). The No Child Law's biggest victims? An answer that may surprise. Education Week, 23, 40–42
15.
FeldhusenJ. F.HuffmanL. (1988). Practicum experiences in an educational program for teachers of the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 34–45
16.
FeldhusenJ. F.KrollM. D. (1991). Boredom or challenge for the academically talented in school. Gifted Education International, 7, 80–81
17.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.AdelsonJ. L.CarrollS. R.SheffieldL. J.SpinelliA. M. (2007). Project M3: Mentoring mathematical minds—A research-based curriculum for talented elementary students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 566–585
18.
HallG.LoucksS. (1979). Implementing innovations in schools: A concerns-based approach. Austin: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education
19.
HanninenG. E. (1988). A study of teacher training in gifted education. Roeper Review, 10, 139–144
20.
HiebertJ.CarpenterT.FennemaE.FusonK.WearneD.MurrayH.HumanP. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
21.
JoffeW. S. (2001). Investigating the acquisition of pedagogical knowledge: Interviews with a beginning teacher of the gifted. Roeper Review, 23, 219–26
22.
KaplanS. (2003). Is there a gifted-child pedagogy?Roeper Review, 25, 165
23.
KrutetskiiV. (1976). Psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren (TellerJ., Ed.; J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup, Trans.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2007). What predicts teachers' attitudes toward the gifted?Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 246–255
26.
MoonS. M.RosselliH. C. (2000). Developing gifted programs. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 499–521). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author
30.
NealD.SchnazenbachD. W. (2007). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. Unpublished manuscript
31.
ReisS. M. (2007). No child left bored. School Administrator, 64, 22–26
32.
SinghD. K.StoloffD. L. (2006, February). What do teacher candidates have to say about their clinical experiences? Paper presented at the meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Atlanta, GA
33.
NeumeisterSpeirs K. L.AdamsC. M.PierceR. L. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers' perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 479–499
34.
SriramanB. (2003). Mathematical giftedness, problem solving, and the ability to formulate generalizations: The problem-solving experiences of four gifted students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 151–165
35.
SriramanB. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonymous in mathematics?Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 20–36
36.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory(2nd ed.).Newbury Park, CA: Sage
37.
TomlinsonC. A. (2002). Different learners, different lessons. Instructor, 112, 21, 24–26
38.
TomlinsonC. A.BrightonC.HertbergH.CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.BrimijoinK.ReynoldsT. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of the literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 119–145
39.
TomlinsonC. A.TomchinE. M.CallahanC. M. (1994, April). Preservice teachers' perceptions of and responses to the differential needs of gifted students in their classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA
40.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.QuekC.FengA. X. (2007). The development and use of a structured teacher observation scale to assess differentiated best practice. Roeper Review, 29, 84–92
41.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2003). Content-based curriculum for high ability learners: An introduction. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.LittleC. A. (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (pp. 1–23). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press
42.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.DobynsS. M.SalvinT. J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120–146
