The purpose of this qualitative study was to provide empirical evidence of the extent to which the types of tasks recommended by Sheffield for eliciting characteristics of mathematical promise allowed for the manifestation of these characteristics in primary-grade students within a problem-based learning (PBL) context. Data included student work collected from two mathematics PBL units, teacher interviews, surveys used by teachers to identify mathematically promising students and video-recorded classroom observations. Data analysis followed Miles and Huberman’s data reduction method with findings reported as themes. Results indicate that students, including those from underserved populations, exhibit characteristics aligned with attributes signifying mathematical promise as proposed by Sheffield within a PBL context.
AgodiniR.HarrisB.ThomasM.MurphyR.GallagherL. (2010). Achievement effects of four early elementary school math curricula: Findings for first and second graders—Executive summary (NCEE 2011-4002). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
2.
BallD.L.CohenD.K. (1996). Reform by the book: what is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8, 14.
3.
BallD. L.ThamesM.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389-407.
BenbowC. P.StanleyJ. C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222(4627), 1029-1031.
6.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2013, November). Describing the status of programs for the gifted: A call for action. Paper presented at the National Association for Gifted Children Annual Convention, Baltimore, MD.
7.
CockrellK.CaplowJ.DonaldsonJ. (2000). A context for learning: Collaborative groups in the problem-based learning environment. The Review of Higher Education, 23, 347-363.
8.
ColliverJ. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory. Academic Medicine, 75, 259-266.
9.
DealL. J.WismerM. G. (2010). NCTM Principles and Standards for mathematically talented students. Gifted Child Today, 33(3), 55-65.
10.
DodsR. (1997). An action research study of the effectiveness of problem-based learning in promoting acquisition and retention of knowledge. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 423-437.
11.
GallagherS.StepienW. (1996). Content acquisition in problem-based learning: Depth versus breadth in American studies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 257-275.
12.
GallagherS.StepienW.RosenthalH. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 195-200.
13.
GarofaloJ. (1992). Number consideration strategies students use to solve word problems. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 14(2), 37-50.
14.
GarofaloJ. (1993). Mathematical problems preferences of meaning-oriented and number-oriented problem solvers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 26-39.
15.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.AdelsonJ. L.CarrollS. R.SheffieldL. J.SpinelliA. M. (2007). Project M3: Mentoring mathematical minds-a research-based curriculum for talented elementary students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 566-585.
16.
HeinzeA. (2005). Differences in problem solving strategies of mathematically gifted and non-gifted elementary students. International Education Journal, 6, 175-183.
17.
HopsonM. H.SimmsR. L.KnezekG. A. (2002). Using a technology-enriched environment to improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 109-119.
18.
HouseP. A. (1999). Promises, promises, promises. In SheffieldL. (Ed.), Developing mathematically promising students (pp. 1-7). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
19.
KimH. K.VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrackenB. A.FengA.StambaughT.BlandL. (2012). Project Clarion: Three years of science instruction in title I schools among k-third grade students. Research in Science Education, 42, 813-829. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9218-5
20.
KrutetskiiV. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
LiuM.HsiehP.ChoY.SchallertD. (2006). Middle school students’ self-efficacy, attitudes, and achievement in a computer-enhanced problem-based learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17, 225-242.
22.
LowellB.SalzmanH.BernsteinH.HendersonE. (2009, November). Steady as she goes? Three generations of students through the science and engineering pipeline. Paper presented at Annual Meetings of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC.
23.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years, uncovering antededents for the development of science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316-345.
24.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
National Center for Educational Studies. (2002). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS), Spring 2002 Teacher Questionnaire. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/ecls/kinderinstruments.asp
27.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
28.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Commission on Standards for School Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
OlsonJ.MartinM.MullisI. (2008). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study technical report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
PrinceM. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-231.
33.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In GrouwsD. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 165-197). New York, NY: Macmillan.
34.
SenocakE.TaskesenligilY.SozbilirM. (2007). A study on teaching gases to prospective primary science teachers through problem based learning. Research in Science Education, 37, 279-290.
35.
SheffieldL. (2003). Extending the challenge in mathematics: Developing mathematical promise in K-8 students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
36.
SheffieldL. (Chair), BennettJ.BeriozábalM.DeArmondM.WertheimerR. (1995). Report on the task force of the mathematically promising. In SheffieldL. J. (Ed.), Developing mathematically promising students (pp. 309-316). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
37.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
38.
SriramanB. (2003). Mathematical giftedness, problem solving, and the ability to formulate generalizations: The problem-solving experiences of four gifted students. Journal of Advance Academics, 14, 151-165. doi:10.4219/jsge-2003-425
39.
UsiskinZ. (1999). The mathematically promising and the mathematically gifted. In SheffieldL. (Ed.), Developing mathematically promising students (pp. 57-69). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
40.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (1997). A problem-based curriculum: Parallel learning opportunities for students and teachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 363-379.
41.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.AveryL. D.LittleC.HughesC. (2000). An evaluation of implementation of curriculum innovation: The impact of the William and Mary units on schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 244-272.
42.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BassG.RiesR.PolandD.AveryL. D. (1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200-211. doi:10.1177/001698629804200404
43.
WenglinskyH. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). Retrieved from epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/download/291/417
44.
WertheimerR. (1999). Definition and identification of mathematical promise. In SheffieldL. (Ed.), Developing mathematically promising students (pp. 9-26). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
45.
WheatleyG. H. (1999). Effective learning environments for promising elementary and middle school students. In SheffieldL. J. (Ed.), Developing mathematically talented students (pp. 71-80). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
46.
WiliamD. (2007). Keeping learning on track: Classroom assessment and the regulation of learning. In LesterF. K.Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1051-1098). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
