Nine months after participating in a three-week individualized, flexiblypaced precalculus course, 239 academically talented students who received placement into a subsequent advanced math course in regular school (placement course) completed a questionnaire which assessed: (a) perceived preparation for advanced level work, (b) grades received in the placement course, and (c) perceived challenge of the individually-paced course relative to the placement course. Responses indicated that students experienced greater challenge in the individually-paced precalculus course than in their school placement course. Self-reported grades, as well as students' perceptions of their preparation for advanced level coursework suggest that individually-paced courses prepare students to be successful in placement courses in their schools. Mathematics courses which allow students to proceed at a pace of learning matched to their abilities, followed by appropriate placement in their schools, provide an educational opportunity to meet the special academic needs of talented students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenbowC., PerkinsS., & StanleyJ. (1980). Mathematics taught at a fast pace: A longitudinal evaluation of SMPY's first class, In BenbowC. & StanleyJ. (eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp. 51–78). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
BrodyL., & BenbowC. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How effective are they for the gifted?Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 105–110.
3.
BrodyL., & StanleyJ. (1991). Young college students: Assessing factors that contribute to success. In SouthernW. & JonesE. (eds.), Academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 102–132). New York: Teachers College Press.
4.
CohnS., GeorgeW., & StanleyJ. (1979). Educational acceleration of intellectually talented youths: Prolonged discussion by a varied group of professionals. In GeorgeW., CohnS., & StanleyJ. (eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment (pp. 183–238). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
5.
CornellD., CallahanC., BassinL., & RamsayS. (1991). Affective development in accelerated students. In SouthernW. & JonesE. (eds.), Academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 74–101). New York: Teachers College Press.
6.
D'AndreaM. (1984). The counselor as pacer: A model for revitalization of the counseling profession. Counseling and Human Development, 64, 1–15.
7.
DanielN., & CoxJ. (1988). Flexible pacing. The Council for Exceptional Children. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse.
8.
DurdenW., MillsC., & BarnettL. (1990). Aspects of gender differentiation in the Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth. In WieczerkowskiW. & PradT. (eds.), Highly talented young women (pp. 166–185). Bad Honnef, Germany: K. Bock.
9.
ElkindD. (1988). Mental acceleration, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11 (4), 19–38.
10.
FeldhusenJ. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. (1989, March). Educational Leadership, 6–11.
11.
FoxL., & WashingtonJ. (1985). Programs for the gifted and talented: Past, present, and future. In HorowitzF. & O'BrienM. (eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 197–221). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12.
HarterS. (1978). Pleasure derived from optimal challenge and the effects of reward on children's difficulty level choices. Child Development, 49, 788–799.
13.
HunterM. (1982). Mastery teaching. El Segundo, CA: TIP Publications.
14.
KulikJ., & KulikC. (1984). Effects of acceleration instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54 (3), 409–425.
15.
LupkowskiA., AssoulineS., & StanleyJ. (1990). Applying a mentor model for young mathematically talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 13, 15–19.
16.
LynchS. (1990). Credit and placement issues for the academically talented following summer studies in science and mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 27–30.
17.
MillsC., & AblardK. (1992). Credit and placement for academically talented students following special summer courses in math and science. Manuscript submitted for publication.
ReddingR. (1989). Underachievement in the verbally gifted: Implications for pedagogy. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 275–291.
20.
ReddingR., MorganG., & HarmonR. (1988). Mastery motivation in infants and toddlers: Is it greatest when tasks are moderately challenging?Infant Behavior and Development, 11, 419–430.
21.
RobinsonA., & StanleyT. (1989). Teaching to talent: Evaluating an enriched and accelerated mathematics program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 253–267.
22.
RobinsonH., & RobinsonN. (1982). The optimal match: Devising the best compromise for the highly gifted student. In FeldmanD. (ed.), New directions for child development: Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity (pp. 79–94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
RyanR., ConnellJ., & DeciE. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education. In AmesC. & AmesR. (eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 2. The classroom milieu (pp. 13–51). Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.
24.
SilvermanL. (1989). The highly gifted. In FeldhusenJ., Van Tassel-BaskaJ., & SeeleyK. (eds.), Excellence in educating the gifted (pp. 71–84). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
25.
SiskD. (1988). The bored and disinterested gifted child: Going through school lockstep. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11 (4), 5–17.
26.
SlavinR. (1987). Academic programming for the gifted. In The Center for Talented Youth (Eds.), Ability Grouping/ Cooperative Learning: Topical Packet. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth.
27.
StanleyJ. (1991). An academic model for educating the mathematically talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 36–42.
28.
StanleyJ., & BenbowC. (1983). SMPY's first decade: Ten years of posing problems and solving them. Journal of Special Education, 17, 11–25.
29.
Van Tassel-BaskaJ. (1989). Appropriate curriculum for gifted learners. (1989, March). Education Leadership, 13–15.
