This article reports on an action research project undertaken by a team of four Grade 2 teachers who work in a school for gifted learners. Focused on implementing a structured printing and spelling curriculum in addition to providing instructed support for planning, organizing, and vocabulary use for different genres of writing, both qualitative and quantitative data provide insights into the contribution and importance of these five curricular elements on the quality and quantity of written production during 1 school year. Of particular importance is the need for automaticity as this relates to capacity theory and the constraints of working memory. The unique needs as well as strengths of the gifted learner profile are highlighted. The article concludes with a series of unanswered questions for the research community to consider.
AliasA.RahmanS.MajidR.YassinS. (2013). Dabrowski’s Overexcitabilities profile among gifted students. Asian Social Science, 9, 120–125. doi:10.5539/ass.v9n16p120
6.
AlstonJ. (1983). A legibility index: Can handwriting be measured?Educational Review, 35, 237–242. doi:10.1080/0013191830350305
7.
AlstonJ. (1985). The handwriting of seven to nine year olds. British Journal of Special Education, 12, 68–72.
ArmbrusterB.AndersonT.OstertagJ. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text?Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 331–346. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/747972
10.
BaumS.M.OwenS.V.DixonJ. (1991). To be gifted and learning disabled. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
11.
BearD.InvernizziM.TempletonS.JohnsonF. (2014). Words their way (5th ed.). Essex, UK: Harlow.
12.
BeerA.MeyerC. (2012). Cutting cursive the real cost: How replacing cursive instruction with keyboarding fluency in elementary schools hampers brain development. Retrieved from http://mimlearning.com/cutting-cursive-the-real-cost/
13.
BerningerV. (1994). Reading and writing acquisition: A developmental neuropsychological perspective. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.
ChristensenC. (2009). The critical role handwriting plays in the ability to produce high-quality written text. In BeardR.MyhillD.RileyJ.NystrandM. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 284–299). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
16.
ColleloS. (2001, July). The role of drawing in children’s writing. Paper presented at II Seminário sobre Letramento e Alfabetização of the 13th COLE–Congresso de Leitura do Brasil, Campinas, Spain. Retrieved from http://www.hottopos.com/rih6/silvia.htm
17.
ConnellyV.GeeD.WalshE. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten composition and the relationship with transcription speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 479–492.
DabrowskiK.PiechowskiM. (1977). Theory of Levels of Emotional Development: Vol. 2. From primary integration to self-actualization. Oceanside, NY: Dabor Science.
Edmonton Public School Board. (2008). Highest Level Achievement Test writing rubric. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Author.
23.
EkuniR.VazL.BuenoO. (2011). Levels of processing: The evolution of a framework. Psychology and Neuroscience, 4, 333–339. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/pn/v4n3/a06v4n3.pdf
24.
EngemannA.GallagherT. (2009). The genesis of a hybrid writing instruction approach through action research. The Ontario Action Researcher, 8(23). Retrieved from http://www.nipissingu.ca/oar/archive-v823e.htm
GrahamS.BerningerV. W.WeintraubN. (1998). The relationship between handwriting style and speed and legibility. The Journal of Educational Research, 91, 290–297. doi:10.1080/00220679809597556
31.
JohnsonE. (2012). Academic language and academic vocabulary. Sacramento, CA: Achievement for All Publishers.
KuhnG.QuigleyA. (1997). Understanding and using action research in practice settings. In QuiglyA.KuhnG. (Eds.), Creating practical knowledge through action research (pp. 23–40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McCutchenD. (2011). From novice to expert: Implications of language skills and writing-relevant knowledge for memory during the development of writing skill. Journal of Writing Research, 3(1), 51–68.
37.
McGeeL. (1982). Awareness of text structure: Effects on children’s recall of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 581–590.
38.
MendaglioS.TillierW. (2006). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration and giftedness: Overexcitability research findings. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 68–87.
39.
MorinM.LavoieN.MontesinosI. (2012). The effects of manuscript, cursive or manuscript/cursive styles on writing development in Grade 2. Language and Literacy, 14, 110–124.
OlsenJ. (2003). Handwriting Without Tears. Cabin John, MD: Western Psychological Services.
42.
PetersonJ.ColangeloN. (1996). Gifted achievers and underachievers: A comparison of patterns found in school files. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 399–407. Retrieved from http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10234.aspx
43.
PiechowskiM. (1979). Developmental potential. In ColangeloN.ZafrannR. T. (Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted (pp. 25–57). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
44.
PiechowskiM. (1986). The concept of developmental potential. Roeper Review, 8, 190–197.
45.
PiechowskiM. (1991). Emotional development and emotional giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavidG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 285–306). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.
ReisS.GentryM.ParkS. (1995). Extending the pedagogy of gifted education to all students (Research Monograph 95118). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Retrieved from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/nrconlin.html
52.
RenzulliJ.ReisS. (2012, May). The future impact of gifted education: Learning, leading and lighting the way. Keynote presented at the Summit on Gifted Education and Talent Development, Mt. St. Vincent University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Retrieved from nselc.ednet.ns.ca/download-document/158-gifted-opening.html
RobertsG.Derkach-FergusonA.SieverJ.RoseS. (2014). An examination of the effectiveness of Handwriting Without Tears® instruction. Journal of Occupational Therapy, 81, 102–113. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0008417414527065
55.
RoessinghH. (2012a). The Grade 3 Provincial Achievement Tests: In need of revamping?Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58, 425–443.
56.
RoessinghH. (2012b). The importance of the prompt for eliciting language samples: Insights from research and considerations for practice. TexELT: Texas English Language Teaching, 1(1), 37–56. Available from http://www.textesolv.org
RogersK. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382–396.
60.
RotigelJ. V. (2003). Understanding the young gifted child: Guidelines for parents, families, and educators. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30, 209–214. doi:10.1023/A:1023331422963
61.
SilvermanL. K. (2009). My love affair with Dabrowski’s theory: A personal odyssey. Roeper Review, 31, 141–149. doi:10.1080/02783190902993912
62.
SilvermanL. K. (1999). Perfectionism: The crucible of giftedness. Advanced Development, 8, 47–61.
63.
SilvermanL. K. (2006). Intensitive! Intensities and sensitivities of the gifted. Social and emotional needs of gifted children. Hobart, Australia: Tasmanian Association for the Gifted.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (1987). The case for teaching Latin to the verbally talented. Roeper Review, 9, 159–161.
66.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2004). Quo vadis? Laboring in the classical vineyards: An optimal challenge for gifted secondary students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(2), 56–60.
67.
YatesC.BerningerV.AbbottR. (1995). Specific writing disabilities in intellectually gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 131–155. Retrieved from http://jeg.sagepub.com/content/18/2/131.full.pdf
