This column expresses ideas on curriculum, instruction, and assessment that provide assistance to practitioners responsible for planning and implementing programs for the gifted. The article featured here addresses the author’s perspective on the biggest curriculum problems in the field and offers ideas for resolution of those problems. It is written, using a problem-based learning format, to highlight one of the highly effective approaches that gifted educators may use to organize and carry out curriculum for the gifted.
AmabileT. (1983). The social psychology of giftedness. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
2.
DeBonoE. (1985). Six thinking hats. New York, NY: Little, Brown, & Co.
3.
FengA.VanTassel-BaskaJ.QuekC.O’NeilB.BaiW. (2005). A longitudinal assessment of gifted students’ learning using the integrated curriculum model: Impacts and perceptions of the William and Mary language arts and science curriculum. Roeper Review, 27, 78-83.
4.
GallagherS. A.StepienW. J. (1996). Content acquisition in problem-based learning: Depth versus breadth in American studies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 257-275.
5.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.AdelsonJ. L.CarrollS. L.SheffieldL. J.SpinelliA. M. (2007). Project M3: Mentoring mathematical minds-a research-based curriculum for talented elementary students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 566-585.
6.
GuskeyT. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
7.
LynchS. J. (1992). Fast-paced high school science for the academically talented: A six-year perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 147-154.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2007). The role of summer programs in developing the talents of gifted students. In VanTassel-BaskaJ. (Ed.), Serving gifted learners beyond the traditional classroom: A guide to alternative programs and services (pp. 13-32). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
10.
StambaughT.BlandL.VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2010). Innovation in schools: The Project Clarion follow-up. Refereed paper presentation. Iowa City: University of Iowa Wallace symposium.
11.
SwansonJ. (2012). A study of Javits projects: Evidence of longitudinal effects. Manuscript in preparation.
12.
SwiatekM. A. (2000). A decade of longitudinal research on academic acceleration through the study of mathematically precocious youth. Roeper Review, 24, 141-144.
13.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (Ed.). (2008). Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
14.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrownE. (2007). Towards best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 342-358.
15.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA.BrownE.BrackenB.StambaughT.FrenchH.. . . BaiW. (2009). A study of differentiated instructional change over three years. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 297-312.
16.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.LittleC. (2011). Content-based curriculum for the gifted. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
17.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.QuekC.FengA. (2007). The development and use of a structured teacher observation scale to assess differentiated best practice. Roeper Review, 29, 84-92.
18.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (2009). What works: 20 years of research and development in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
