This paper examines the use of open-ended activities as a strategy for providing differentiated instruction and challenge for identified gifted students. In a qualitative study of open-ended activities in one third-grade and one fourth-grade classroom, findings revealed that the use of open-ended activities perpetuated patterns of consistency and comfort in learning of students who were gifted and talented. Teachers implemented differentiation according to their own ideas. The responses of five children are presented to demonstrate the patterns of consistency found in the pursuit of open-ended activities. The instructional implications for designing open-ended activities that maximize opportunities to challenge students are then presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArchambaultF. X.WestbergK. L.BrownS. W.HallmarkB. W.EmmonsC. L.ZhangW. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (Research Monograph 93101). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
2.
AmonashviliS. (1989). Non-directive teaching and the humanization of the educational process. Prospects, XIX, 582–590.
3.
BartzW. (1982). The role of foreign language education for the gifted and talented student. Washington, DC: National Council of State Supervisors. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 216 515).
DeBelloT. C. (1990). Comparison of eleven major learning-styles models: Variability of appropriate populations, validity of instrumentation, and the research behind them. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 6, 203–222.
6.
FeinburgS.MindessM. (1994). Eliciting children's full potential. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
7.
GartonH. A. (1980). Contemporary art: Humanities thematic unit (An example unit for gifted students). Doylestown, PA: Bucks County Intermediate Unit22.
8.
GuilfordJ. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.
HaysT. S. (1993 Spring). A study of effective classroom practices with gifted students in rural settings. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, 15.
10.
HertzogN. B. (1995). Investigating the nature of open-ended activities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
11.
ImbeauM. B. (1993 Spring). Teacher's attitudes toward curriculum compacting: A comparison of different inservice strategies. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, p. 3.
12.
KaplanS. (1986). The grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 180–193). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
13.
MakerC. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
14.
MatthewsM. K. (1992 April). Gifted students and whole language: A descriptive study of four classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 351 834).
15.
National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. (1993). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
16.
PollackH. L. (1988). Questioning strategies to encourage critical thinking. Insights Into Open Education, 21, 3–8.
17.
RenzulliJ. S. (1977). The interest-a-lyzer. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
18.
RenzulliJ. S.ReidB. D.GubbinsE. J. (1992). Setting an agenda: Research priorities for the gifted and talented through the year 2000. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
19.
RenzulliJ. S.SmithL. H. (1978). Learning styles inventory: A measure of student preference for instructional techniques. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
20.
RenzulliJ. S.SmithF. H.WhiteA. J.CallahanC. M.HartmanR. K. (1976). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students (SCRBCSS). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
21.
SniderV. E. (1990 October). What we know about learning styles from research in special education. Educational Leadership, 53.
22.
SternbergR. (1994 April). Concluding remarks. In. SternbergR. (Chair), Do the “Gifted Folks” and the “Detracking Folks” have anything in common? Symposium conducted at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
23.
TorranceE. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
24.
Urbana School District 116. (1990). State mandated gifted comprehensive plan. Urbana, IL: Author.
25.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.DobynsS. M.SalvinT. J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120–146.
26.
WoodburyV. G. (1980). Humanities thematic units: Four example units for gifted students in grade 6. Doylestown, PA: Bucks County Intermediate Unit22.
