In this article, we—a former high school language arts instructor and former K-3 gifted resource teacher—reflect on critical experiences with students that, although unique in scope, are bound together through a common concern: How can teachers provide meaningful writing experiences for talented young writers? We advocate for the use of high-end learning theory in developing the talent of young writers, especially as related to the provision of authentic, real-world writing experiences.
BringleR. G.HatcherJ. A. (1999, Fall). Reflection in service-learning: Making meaning of experience. Educational Horizons, 77(4), 179-185.
2.
BringleR. G.HatcherJ. A. (2009). Innovative practices in service-learning and curricular engagement. New Directions for High Education, 147, 37-46.
3.
BritschS. (2002). Beyond stories: Young children’s nonfiction composition. New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
DormanW.DormanF. (1997). Service-learning: Bridging the gap between the real world and the composition classroom. In Addler-KassnerL.CooksR.WattersA. (Eds.), Writing the community: Concepts and models for service-learning in composition (pp. 119-132). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
5.
DubinskyJ. (2002). Service-learning as a path to virtue: The ideal orator in professional communication. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 8, 61-74.
6.
DuffyC. H. (2003). Tapping the potential of service-learning: Guiding principles for redesigning our composition courses. Reflections, 3(1), 1-15.
7.
EdmundsA. L.NoelK. A. (2003). Literary precocity: An exceptional case among exceptional cases. Roeper Review, 25, 185-194.
8.
ErlamR. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 87, 242-260.
9.
FurcoA. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. In TaylorB. & Corporation for National Service (Eds.), Expanding boundaries: Serving and learning (pp. 2-6). Washington, DC: Corporation for National Service.
10.
GarrettL.MoltzenR. (2011). Writing because I want to, not because I have to: Young gifted writers’ perspectives on factors that “matter” in developing expertise. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(1), 165-180.
11.
HerronC.TomaselloM. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. The French Review, 65, 708-718.
12.
JeanG.SimmardD. (2013). Deductive versus inductive grammar instruction: Investigating possible relationships between gains, preferences, and learning styles. Elsevier, 43, 1023-1042.
13.
KatsarouE. (2009). A multiliteracy intervention in a contemporary “mono-literacy” school in Greece. International Journal of Learning, 16(5), 55-65.
14.
KohanyiA. (2005). Four factors thatmaypredict the emergence of creative writing: A proposed model. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 195-205.
15.
KressG. (2013). Perspectives on making meaning: The differential principles and means of adults and children. In LarsonJ.MarshJ. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of early childhood literacy (2nd ed., pp. 329-345). London, England: Sage.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (2009). A technology-based application of the schoolwide enrichment model and high-end learning theory. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), International handbook of giftedness (pp. 1203-1223). New York, NY: Springer.
22.
RobinsonI. (1996). Learning simple and complex rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search conditions and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67.
23.
RosaR.O’NeillM. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 51-556.
24.
SchnurR.MarmorS. G. (2009). Reading, writing, and raising the bar: Exploring gifts and talents in literacy. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), International handbook of giftedness (pp. 713-725). New York, NY: Springer.
25.
SeligerH. (1975). Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: A re-examination. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 13(1), 1-18.
26.
ShafferC. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 395-403.
27.
ShoffnerM.de OliveiraL. C.AngusR. (2010). Multiliteracies in the secondary English classroom: Becoming literate in the 21st century. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(3), 75-89.
28.
TothP. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56, 319-385.
29.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
WengerE. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7, 225-246.
31.
WilliamsB. (2008). “Tomorrow will not be like today”: Literacy and identity in a world of multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, 682-686.
