Teachers who work with gifted children in content area reading face challenges because they teach bright children in a new millennium. Today's gifted students have grown up with digital literacies that expand their capabilities and contribute to their individual needs. Unfortunately, when it comes to instruction, these literacies are often disregarded. Tasks given are not relevant or at an appropriate level, what Vygotsky termed the zone of proximal development.
In this paper, Vygotsky's theory is posed as the way to nurture the literacy and content area needs of gifted students. To begin, an overview of Vygotsky's theory is presented. Then, the reader is taken into the life of a teacher facing inclusion tensions. The final section reveals how these tensions are eased and teaching revitalized with Vygotsky's theory and 21st century literacy skills.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Library Association & Association for Educational Communications and Technology (1998). Literacy standards for student learning. Chicago: Author.
2.
AndersonandL.W.KrathwholR.D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for teaching, and assessing. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy. New York: Longman.
BonkC.CunninghamD. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In BonkC.KingK. (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25–50). Mahawh, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
CarnevaleA.P.DesrochersD.M. (2003). Standards for what? The economic roots of K-16 reform. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
7.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS.GrossM. (Eds) (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest. Iowa City, IA: The Belin Bank Center Gifted Education and Talent Development.
8.
CollinsN. D.AiexN. K. (1995). Gifted readers and reading instruction. ERIC Digest #101.
9.
FeldhusenJ.F. (1996). Motivating academically able youth with enriched and learning experiences. In BenbowC.P.LubinskiD.J. (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.
10.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.HamlettC.L.KarnesK. (1998). High-achieving students' interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of heterogeneous and homogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal35, 227–315.
11.
GregoryG.H.KuzmichL. (2005). Differentiated literacy strategies for student growth and achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
12.
GrossE.F. (2004). Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what teens want, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 633–649.
13.
HenryL.E. (2006). SEARCHing for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on the Internet. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 59(7), 614–627.
14.
LewisR.B.DoorlagD.H. (2003). Teaching special students in general education classrooms (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
15.
McCombsB.L.VakiliB.2005. A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1582–1600.
NeihartM. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 330–341.
18.
PrenskyM. (2005). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 103.
19.
PrenskyM. (2006). Don't bother me Mom-I'm learning. Minneapolis, MN: Paragon House Publishers.
20.
PutneyL.G.GreenJ.DixenC.DuranR.YeagerB., 2000. Exploring collecive-individual development in a bilingual classroom. In LeeC.SmagorinskyP. (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 86–126). New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
RogoffB. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
RogoffB. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
