This article reviews the current status of special curriculum for gifted learners and proposes a new perspective for the development of mathematics and science curriculum at grades 6–12. Fundamental to the development of such curriculum is a recognition of the needs of gifted learners for accelerated content within a conceptual framework that incorporates conceptually the current technology. Suggested scope and sequence charts are included that reflect the best curricular models from the 1960's with futuristic concepts and ideas to meet the needs of students today.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerI. (1966). The Cambridge Report: Blueprint of fantasy?The Mathematics Teacher, 59, 210–217.
2.
AdlerI. (1972). Criteria of success in the seventies.The Mathematics Teacher, 65, 34–41.
3.
ArietiS. (1978). Creativity: The magic synthesis.New York: Basic Books.
4.
BenbowC., & StanleyJ. (1983). Academic precocity: Aspects of its development.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
5.
BronowskiJ. (1973). The ascent of man.Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
6.
BurkeJ. (1978). Connections.Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
7.
Carnegie Corporation. (1983). Education and economic progress: Toward a national education policy.New York NY: Carnegie Corporation.
8.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1983). High School: A report on American secondary education.New York NY: Carnegie Foundation.
9.
ClarkK. (1969). Civilization.New York NY: Harper & Row.
10.
College Entrance Examination Board. (1982). Academic preparations for college. Educational Equality Project. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
11.
College Entrance Examination Board. (1959). Program for college preparatory mathematics, Commission on Mathematics. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
12.
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, National Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education. (1975). Overview and analysis of school mathematics, grades K-12.Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
13.
Council for Exceptional Children. (1978). The nations’ commitment to the education of gifted and talented children and youth: Summary of findings from a 1977 survey of states and territories.Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
14.
Education Commission of the States. (1983). Action for excellence.Denver, CO: Task Force on Education for Economic Growth.
15.
GallagherJ. (1975). Teaching the gifted child (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
16.
GallagherJ., WeissP., OglesbyK., & ThomasT. (1982). Report on education of the gifted, Volume 1: Surveys of education of gifted students.Chapel Hill NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina.
17.
HillS. (1980). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics President's Address, 58th Annual Meeting.Arithmetic Teacher, 28, 49–54.
18.
HofstadterD. R. (1980). Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Goldeh Braid.New York NY: Vintage Books.
19.
JudsonH. (1979). The Eighth day of creation.New York NY: Simon and Schuster.
20.
JudsonH. (1980). The search for solutions.New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
21.
KaplanS. (1979). Language arts and social studies curriculum in the elementary school. In PassowH. (Ed.), NSSE Yearbook, The gifted and the talented.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
KeatingD. (Ed.). (1976). Intellectual talent.Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.
23.
KlineM. (1973). Why Johnny can't add: The failure of the new math.New York NY: St. Martin's Press.
24.
KrutetskiiV. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
LeshR., LandauM., & HamiltonE. (1983). Conceptual models and applied mathematical problem solving research. In LeshR., & LandauM. (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes.New York, NY: Academic Press.
26.
LockardJ. D. (Ed.). (1977). Twenty years of science and mathematics curriculum development: The tenth report of the International Clearinghouse on Science and Mathematics Curricular Developments.College Park MD: The International Clearinghouse, Science Teaching Center, University of Maryland.
27.
MakerC. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted.Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Publications.
28.
MartinK. (1979). Science and the gifted adolescent.Roeper Review, 2(2), 25–26.
29.
MeekerM. (1969). The Structure of intellect: Its interpretation and uses.Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
30.
National Association and the Commission on Educational Issues of the National Association of Independent Schools. (1983). A celebration of teaching: High schools in the 1980s.Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
31.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983) A nation at risk.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
32.
National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology. (1983). Educating Americans in the 21st century: A report to the American people and the National Science Board.National Science Board.
33.
National School Boards Association. (1979). National School Boards Association research report: Math, science, and social studies curriculum—Retrospect and prospects.National School Boards Association.
34.
PassowH. (1982). LTI committee report.Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute/Gifted and Talented. Unpublished report.
35.
PyrytM. D. (1979). Helping scientifically gifted students.Science and Children, 16(6), 16–17.
36.
RenzulliJ. (1975). The enrichment triad.Wethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
37.
SimpsonN. (1983). Evaluation of Midwest Talent Search Summer Program. Final Report. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
38.
StanleyJ. (1980). On educating the gifted.Educational Researcher, 9, 8–12.
