The relationship between the perceptions of teachers and those of gifted students regarding gifted curriculum and instructional methods was investigated in this study. An instrument was developed that examined these perceptions related to various methods in gifted education. It was noted that the strongest agreement was found in the promotion of accelerated or advanced classes where both the students and the teachers agreed (average score of 5.1 out of 6). Likewise, it was also noted that students and teachers did not feel that work should be completed more quickly (average score 2.62 out of 6). It was found that encouragement toward advanced studies and increased opportunities to explore topics of interest would also be beneficial while forced acceleration of work would not.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BorlandJ. H.HortonD.SubotnikR. F.ChenS.-J.ChunM.FreemanC., (2002). Ability grouping and acceleration of gifted students: Articles from the Roeper Review. Roeper Review, 24(3), 100–102.
2.
Bouffard-BouchardT.ParentS.LariveeS. (1993). Self-regulation on a concept-formation task among average and gifted students. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 115–134.
Brevard Public Schools. (2002). Gifted section: Exceptional student education county plan (pp. 1–18). Brevard County, FL: Brevard County Schools.
5.
BrodyL. E.BenbowC. P. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How effective are they for the gifted?Gifted Child Quarterly, 3(3), 105–120.
6.
ClarkG.ZimmermanE. (2002). Tending the special spark: Accelerated and enriched curricula for highly talented art students. Roeper Review, 24(3), 161–168.
7.
Demmon-BergerD. (1985). What are you doing for the gifted and talented?Updating School Board Policies, 16(10), 1?3–1?6.
8.
GentryM.RizzaM. G.OwenS. V. (2002). Examining perceptions of challenge and choice in classrooms: the relationship between teachers and their students and comparisons between gifted students and other students [Abstract]. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2).
9.
GoldenD. (2003, December29). Intiative to Leave No Child Left Behind Leaves Out Gifted. Wall Street Journal, 242(126), pp. A1–2.
10.
HertzogN. B. (2003). The impact of gifted programs from the students' perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 131–143.
11.
KulikJ. A.KulikC.-L. C. (1984). Synthesis of research on effects of accelerated instruction. Educational Leadership, 42(2), 84–89.
12.
MakerC. J.NielsonA. B. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners. Austin, TX: ProEd.
13.
ParkeB. N. (1989). Gifted students in the regular classroom. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
14.
PiirtoJ. (1994). Talented children and adults: Their development and education. New York, NY: Merrill.
15.
RenzulliJ. S. (1982). MakerC. J. (Ed.), Teaching models in education. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corp.
16.
RenzulliJ. S.PetsS. M. (2002). What is school wide enrichment. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 25(4), 18–26.
17.
RogersK. B. (2002). Grouping the gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 24(3), 103–107.
18.
SchemoD. J. (2004, March2). Schools, Facing Tight Budgets, Leave Gifted Programs Behind. New York Times, 153(52776), pp. A1–2.
ShoreB. M.CornellD. G.RobinsonA.WardV. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York and London: Teachers College Press.
21.
SmutnyJ. F. (1990). Education of the gifted: Programs and perspectives. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation.
SwiatekM. A.BenbowC. P. (1991). A 10-year longitudinal follow-up of participants in a fast-paced mathematics course. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 22(2), 138–150.
24.
SwiatekM. A.BenbowC. P. (1992). Nonintellectual correlates of satisfaction with acceleration: A longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21(6), 699–723.
25.
VialleW.AshtonT.CarlonG.RankinF. (2001). Acceleration: A coat of many colors. Roeper Review, 24(1), 14–20.
