Developing Hidden Talent: An Exploratory Study of Advanced Math Curriculum Implementation and Its Effects on Young Mathematically Promising English Learners
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2024
Developing Hidden Talent: An Exploratory Study of Advanced Math Curriculum Implementation and Its Effects on Young Mathematically Promising English Learners
In this qualitative case study, we investigated the role of an advanced math curriculum with language scaffolding on the development of geometric and visual-spatial reasoning skills in young mathematically promising English learners (MPELs). Specifically, we examined the effects of providing MPELs with challenging and supportive math curriculum to facilitate the development of mathematical potential through a geometry unit. Twenty-one MPELs were randomly assigned to either an intervention or a comparison class. The data sources included audio recordings of class sessions, documents of math tasks, field notes, and test scores. Findings revealed that in the intervention class, tasks required more cognitive demands, and students were encouraged to contribute to classroom discourse more than in the comparison class. MPELs in the intervention class demonstrated greater gains in geometric reasoning compared to their peers in the comparison class. These findings underscore the point that challenging and supportive curricula can effectively nurture the mathematical potential of underrepresented gifted students.
AguirreN. M.HernandezN. E. (2021). Differentiating the curriculum for gifted second language learners: Teaching them to think. In CastellanoJ. A.FrazierA. D. (Eds.), Special populations in gifted education (pp. 273–285). Routledge.
2.
BallD. L.CohenD. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177151
3.
BloomB. (1985). Developing talent in young people. Ballantine.
4.
BriggsC. J.RenzulliJ. S. (2009). Scaffolding CLED students to promote greater participation in programs for the gifted and talented. Journal of Urban Economics: Focus on Enrichment, 6(1), 1–15.
5.
CasaT. M.FirmenderJ. M.GavinM. K.CarrollS. R. (2017). Kindergarteners’ achievement on geometry and measurement units that incorporate a gifted education approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(1), 52–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216671806
6.
CaseyB. M.PezarisE.FinemanB.PollockA.DemersL.DearingE. (2015). A longitudinal analysis of early spatial skills compared to arithmetic and verbal skills as predictors of fifth-grade girls’ math reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.028
7.
ClaessensA.EngelM. (2013). How important is where you start? Early mathematics knowledge and later school success. Teachers College Record, 115(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500603
8.
ClementsD. H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a framework for research-based curricula. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(1), 35–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034927
9.
CohenD. K.RaudenbushS. W.BallD. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025002119
10.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (2000). Becoming adult: How teenagers prepare for the world of work. Basic Books.
11.
Darling-HammondL. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000
12.
EchevarriaJ. (2012). Effective practices for increasing the achievement of English learners. Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners.
13.
FreyN.FisherD.NelsonJ. (2013). Todo tiene que ver con lo que se habla: It’s all about the talk. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(6), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309400603
14.
GagnéF. (2020). Differentiating giftedness from talent: The DMGT perspective on talent development. Routledge.
15.
GavinM. K. (2021). Mathematics curriculum for gifted learners. In StephensK. R.KarnesF. A. (Eds.), Introduction to curriculum design in gifted education (pp. 151–174). Routledge.
16.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.AdelsonJ. L.FirmenderJ. M. (2013). The impact of challenging geometry and measurement units on the achievement of grade 2 students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(3), 478–509. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.3.0478
17.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.FirmenderJ. M.CarrollS. R. (2013). The impact of advanced geometry and measurement curriculum units on the mathematics achievement of first-grade students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(2), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213479564
HiebertJ.GrouwsD. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In LesterF. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Information Age.
LanahanL.McGrathD. J.McLaughlinM.Burian-FitzgeraldM.SalganikL. (2005). Fundamental problems in the measurement of instructional processes: Estimating reasonable effect sizes and conceptualizing what is important to measure. American Institutes for Research.
22.
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(4), 316–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
23.
MarzanoR. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. ASCD.
24.
MerrittE. G.PalaciosN.BanseH.Rimm-KaufmanS. E.LeisM. (2016). Teaching practices in Grade 5 mathematics classrooms with high-achieving English learner students. Journal of Educational Research, 110(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1034352
25.
MillerR.GentryM. (2010). Developing talents among high-potential students from low-income families in an out-of-school enrichment program. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(4), 594–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1002100403
26.
MunR. U.HemmlerV.LangleyS. D.WareS.GubbinsE. J.CallahanC. M.McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2020). Identifying and serving English learners in gifted education: Looking back and moving forward. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(4), 297–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353220955230
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2003). Do we change gifted children to fit gifted programs, or do we change gifted programs to fit gifted children?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26(4), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2003-308
29.
Olszewski‐KubiliusP.SubotnikR. F.WorrellF. C. (2015). Conceptualizations of giftedness and the development of talent: Implications for counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00190.x
30.
PeregoyS.BoyleO. F. (2008). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL. Pearson.
31.
PetersS. J.EngerrandK. G. (2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165
32.
RenzulliJ. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901
33.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1994). Research related to the schoolwide enrichment triad model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800102
34.
RenzulliJ. S.SiegleD.ReisS. M.GavinM. K.ReedR. E. S. (2009). An investigation of the reliability and factor structure of four new scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(1), 84–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X0902100105
ShavelsonR. J.PhillipsD. C.TowneL.FeuerM. J. (2004). On the science of educational design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001025
37.
SheffieldL. J. (2002). Extending the challenge in mathematics: Developing mathematical promise in K–8 students. Corwin Press.
38.
SheffieldL. J.BennettJ.BerriozabalM.DeArmondM.WertheimerR. (1995). Report of the NCTM task force on the mathematically promising. In SheffieldL. J. (Ed.), Developing mathematically promising students (pp. 309–316). NCTM.
39.
SteinM.SmithM.HenningsenM.SilverE. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. Teachers College Press.
40.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.CorwithS.CalvertE.WorrellF. C. (2023). Transforming gifted education in schools: Practical applications of a comprehensive framework for developing academic talent. Education Sciences, 13(7), 707. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070707
41.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
42.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2018). Talent development as the most promising focus of giftedness and gifted education. In PfeifferS. I.Shaunessy-DedrickE.Foley-NicponM. (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 231–245). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-015
43.
Tekkumru-KisaM.SteinM. K.DoyleW. (2020). Theory and research on tasks revisited: Task as a context for students’ thinking in the era of ambitious reforms in mathematics and science. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 606–617. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20932480
44.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2018). Considerations in curriculum for gifted students. In PfeifferS. I.Shaunessy-DedrickE.Foley-NicponM. (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 349–369). American Psychological Association.
45.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5
