Technology to the Rescue: Appropriate Curriculum for Gifted Students

Susan L Zimlich

Abstract


An appropriate curriculum for students who are gifted will meet their learning needs and motivate them to stay engaged in the learning process. In an effort to provide an appropriate curriculum for gifted students, one possibility is to provide a behavior trap. Behavior traps are learning activities that entice students to engage due to interest in the content or activity itself. Behavior traps motivate because they are easy to do at first and then reinforce motivation later to encourage continued engagement (Albert & Heward, 1996). Technology can be both a tool to provide a behavior trap and also a behavior trap in and of itself. Students who are gifted benefit when curriculum provides practice with complex topics, critical thinking, self-reflection, creativity, and access to mentors for scaffolding.  This is essential for helping students who are gifted to reach their potential. Technology and what can be done with technology in educational settings can provide complexity in differentiated or individualized learning. Students’ critical thinking skills and metacognition can be built through problem solving, projects, and simulations enhanced or provided by technology. Students can compare their work with peers in other locations or have access to mentors who might not otherwise be available. Specialized software and equipment can be used to help build academic skills and also develop creativity. Technology can help teachers meet the standards for gifted education programs, but only if teachers choose to implement technology in meaningful ways that meet the needs of students who are gifted.

https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.16.9.1


Keywords


gifted, technology, curriculum

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abelman, R. (2007). Fighting the war on indecency: Mediating TV, internet, and videogame usage among achieving and underachieving gifted children. Roeper Review, 29, 100-112.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190709554393

Albert, S. R., & Heward, W. L. (1996). Gotcha! Twenty-five behavior traps guaranteed to extend your students’ academic and social skills. Intervention in School & Clinic, 31, 285-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/105345129603100505

Ba, H., Tally, W., & Tsikalas, K. (2002). Investigating children’s emerging digital literacies. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 1(4). Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1670/1510

Bain, S. K., Bliss, S. L., Choate, S. M., & Brown, K. S. (2007). Serving children who are gifted: Perceptions of undergraduates planning to become teachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 450-478.

https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-506

Baule, S. M. (2007). The components of successful technology. Teacher Librarian, 34 (5), 16-18.

Betts, J., Tardrew, S., & Ysseldyke, J. (2004). Use of an instructional management system to enhance math instruction of gifted and talented students. Journal of Education of the Gifted, 27, 293-310. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2004-319

Boon, R. T., Fore, C., & Rasheed, S. (2007). Students' attitudes and perceptions toward technology-based applications and guided notes instruction in high school world history classrooms. Reading Improvement, 4(1), 23-31.

Callendar, A. A., Franco-Watkins, A. M., & Roberts, A. S. (2015). Improving metacognition in the classroom through instruction, training, and feedback. Metacognition Learning 11, 215-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9142-6

Clausen, J. M. (2007). Beginning teachers’ technology use: First-year teacher development and the institutional context’s affect on new teachers’ technology use with students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 245-261.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782482

Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2012). Motivation and gifted students: Implications of theory and research. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 622-630. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21628

Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Digital imaging supplement- shape: Adobe After Effects, Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Premier used in Savannah R-III Elementary School. (2001). T.H.E. Journal, 29 (3), 66.

Donovan, L., Hartley, K., & Strudler, N. (2007). Teacher concerns during initial implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative at the middle school level. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 263-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782483

Dove, M. K., & Zitkovich, J. A. (2003). Technology driven group investigations for gifted elementary students. Information Technology in Childhood Education, 2003(1), 223-241.

Fleith, D. d. F. (2000). Teacher and students’ perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22, 148-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554022

Garcia, P., & Rose, S. (2007). The influence of technocentric collaboration on preservice teachers’ attitudes about technology’s role in powerful learning and teaching. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15, 247-266.

Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Cook, C. R., & Morris, P. E. (2005). Educational characteristics of adolescents with gifted academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal investigation from school entry through early adulthood. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 172-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900206

Harrison, C. (2004). Giftedness in early childhood: The search for complexity and connection. Roeper Review, 26, 78-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190409554246

Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P. (2016). Infusing creativity and technology in 21st century education: A systematic view for change. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 27-37.

Hettinger, H. R., & Knapp, N. F., (2001). Potential, performance, and paradox: A case study of J. P., a verbally gifted struggling reader. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 248-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320102400303

Hong, E., & Aqui, Y. (2004). Cognitive and motivational characteristics of adolescents gifted in mathematics: Comparisons among students with different types of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 191- 201. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800304

Housand, B. C., & Housand, A. M. (2012). The role of technology in gifted students’ motivation. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 706-715. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21629

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National Education Technology Standards for Students. Retrieved from http://www.cnets.iste.org/standards/standards/for-students

Johnsen, S. K., Witte, M., & Robins, J. (2006). Through their eyes: Students’ perspectives of a university-based enrichment program – The University for Young People Project. Gifted Child Today, 29 (3), 56-61. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2006-5

Kaplan, S. N. (2016). Challenge vs. differentiation: Why, what and how. Gifted Child Today 39(2), 114-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217516628916

Kaufman, J. C., Gentile, C. A., & Baer, J. (2005). Do gifted student writers and creative writing experts rate creativity the same way? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 260-265. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900307

Kilian, B., Hofer, M., & Kahnle, C. (2013). Conflicts between on-task and off-task behaviors in the classroom: The influences of parental monitoring, peer value orientations, students’ goals, and their value orientations. Social Psychology of Education, 16(1), 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9198-y

Kimball, K. L. B. (2001). Interpretative stories from school careers of gifted students. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (AAT 3032075)

Kinnebrew, J. S., Segedy, J. R., & Biswas, G. (2014). Analyzing the temporal evolution of students’ behavior in open-ended learning environments. Metacognition & Learning 9(2), 187-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9112-4

Lanahan, L., & Boysen, J. (2005). Computer technology in the public school classroom: Teacher perspectives. (NCES 2005-083). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005083.pdf

Little, C. A. (2012). Curriculum as motivation for gifted students. Psychology in the schools, 49, 695-705. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21621

Mammadov, S. & Topcu, A. (2014). The role of e-mentoring in mathematically gifted students’ academic life: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(3), 220-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214540824

Mohide, E. A., Matthew-Maich, N., & Cross, H. (2006). Using electronic gaming to promote evidence-based practice in nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education, 45, 384.

Moon, T. R., Callahan, C. M., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Effects of state testing program on elementary schools with high concentration of student poverty- Good news or bad news? Current Issues in Education, 6(8). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/volume6/number8/

National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). 2010 pre-K-grade 12 gifted programming standards. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/K-12%20programming%20standards.pdf

National Association for Gifted Children. (2013). NAGC-CEC teacher preparation standards in gifted and talented education. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/NAGC-%20CEC%20CAEP%20standards%20(2013%20final).pdf

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Lee, S. Y. (2004). Gifted adolescents’ talent development through distance learning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(1), 7-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320402800102

Olthouse, J. M., & Miller, M. T. (2012). Teaching talented writers with web 2.0 tools. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(2), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991204500201

Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist 36(2), 89-101. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3602_4

Reid, P. T., & Roberts, S. K. (2006). Gaining Options: A Mathematics Program for Potentially Talented At-risk Adolescent Girls. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 288-304. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2006.0019

Rosenfeld, B. (2008). The challenges of teaching with technology: From computer idiocy to computer competence. International Journal of Instructional Media, 35, 157-166.

Russo, C. F. (2004). A comparative study of creativity and cognitive problem-solving strategies of high-IQ and average students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800303

Sak, U. (2004). About creativity, giftedness, and teaching the creatively gifted in the classroom. Roeper Review, 26, 216-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190409554272

Siegle, D. (2004). The merging of literacy and technology in the 21st century: A bonus for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 27(2), 32-35.

https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2004-129

Siegle, D. (2015). Technology. Gifted Child Today, 38(3), 192-197.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217515583744

Siegle, D., & Foster, (2001). Laptop computers and multimedia and presentation software: Their effects on student achievement in anatomy and physiology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2001.10782331

Smith, K. & Weitz, M. (2003). Problem Solving Education and Gifted Education: A Differentiated Fifth-Grade Fantasy Unit. Gifted Child Today, 26(3), 56-60. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2003-108

Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Sholik, A. (2000). Gender differences in academic attitudes among gifted elementary school students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 360-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320002300403

Tünzün, H. (2007). Blending video games with learning: Issues and challenges with classroom implementations in the Turkish context. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 465-477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00710.x

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2015). Curriculum issues: Error analysis in thinking about curriculum for the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 38(3), 198-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217515583746

Wighting, M. J. (2006). Effects of Computer Use on High School Students' Sense of Community. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 371-379. https://doi.org/10.3200/joer.99.6.371-380

Williams, D., Ma, Y., Feist, S., Richard, C. E., & Prejean, L. (2007). The design of an analogical encoding tool for game-based virtual learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 429-437.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00707.x

Wolsey, T. D., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Adolescents and the new literacies: Writing engagement. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2007.10463446

Wong, A. F. L., Quek, C. L., Divaharan, S., Liu, W. C., Peer, J., & Williams, M. D. (2006). Singapore Students' and Teachers' Perceptions of Computer-Supported Project Work Classroom Learning Environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 449-479. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782469

Yang, E. F. Y., Chang, B., Cheng, H. N. H., & Chan, T. (2016). Improving pupils’ mathematical communication abilities through computer-supported reciprocal peer tutoring. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 157-169.

Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, D. M. (2007). Effect of technology-enhanced continuous progress monitoring on math achievement. School Psychology Review, 36, 453-467.

Zentall, S. S., Moon, S. M., Hall, A. M., & Grskovich, J. A. (2001). Learning and motivational characteristics of boys with AD/HD and/or giftedness. Exceptional Children, 67(4), 499-519. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106700405


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493