Recommendations for Practice: Designing Curriculum for Gifted Students
Keywords:
üstün yeteneklilerin eğitimi, müfredat tasarımı, üstün zekalı öğrenci, gifted education, curriculum design, gifted studentsAbstract
Abstract
Throughout the literature of gifted education, the modifications recommended for differenti- ating curriculum for gifted students may be categorized as relating to content, process, product, learning environment, and (to a lesser extent) affective concerns. Due to the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program (funded by the United States De- partment of Education) in particular, there are now data that provide evidence of some effec- tive curriculum interventions for producing achievement gains in gifted students. Specific recommendations have been gleaned based on findings from the research and about curricu- lum development and implementation in gift- ed education (Robins & Chandler, 2013). These may prove useful for designing curriculum or facilitating the development of programming for highly able students. In this article, the au- thor provides background information about the curricular needs of gifted students and specific recommendations for practice that can serve as a guide for key stakeholders to opti- mize talent and educational opportunity.
Öz
Üstün zekalıların eğitimlerine ilişkin literatüre bakıldığında üstün zekalı öğrenciler için öneri- len müfredat farklılaştırmalarıyla ilgili modifi- kasyonlar içerik, süreç, ürün, öğrenme ortamı ve duyuşsal (diğerlerine göre daha az derece- de) kategorilerle ilgili olduğu görülmektedir. Günümüzde Jacob K. Javit Üstün Zekalı ve Ye- tenekliler Eğitim Programı (ABD Eğitim Dpartmanı tarafından desteklenen) gibi bazı uygulamalardan elde edilen veriler, bazı müf- redat uygulamalarının üstün zekalı öğrenciler için etkili ve başarılı olduğuna dair kanıt sun- maktadır. Üstün zekalıların eğitiminde müfre- dat geliştirme ve uygulamalarıan ve araştırma bulgularına dayalı olarak özel önerilerde bu- lunulmuştur(Robins & Chandler, 2013). bun- lar üstün yetenekli öğrenciler için program geliştirmeye ve müfredat tasarlamaya yardımcı olabilir. Bu makalede yazar üstün zekalı öğrencilerin müfredat gereksinimleri hakkında ön bilgi vererek üstün zekalı öğrencilerin eği- timlerindeki paydaşlara yardımcı olacak uygulamaya dönük özel önerilerde bulunmuştur.
References
Borko, H., Mayfield, V., Marion, S., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers' developing ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks, and im- plications for professional development. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eisner, E. W., & Vallance, E. (1974). Five conceptions of curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning. In E. W. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting concep- tions of curriculum (pp. 1-18). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corporation.
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented (Government Documents Y4.L
/2: G36). Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to the U.S. Office of Education, 2 vols. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Plucker, J.A., & Callahan, C.M. (Eds.) (2008). Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Robins , J. & Chandler, K. (eds.). (2013). What works: 25 years of curriculum development and re- search (2nd ed.). Prufrock Press, Waco, TX.
Robinson, A., Shore, B.M, & Enersen, D.L. (Eds.) (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement (Research Progress Report). Retrieved December 27, 2007, from http://downloads.heartland.org/21803a.pdf
Shore, B. (1988). Recommended practices in the education and upbringing of the gifted: A progress report on an assessment of knowledge base. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Edu- cation, Office of Gifted and Talented Education.
Stambaugh, T., & Chandler, K.L. (2012). Effective curriculum for underserved gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Tanner, D., & Tanner, L.M. (1980). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1996). The development of talent through curriculum. Roeper Review, 18, 98-102.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Content-based curriculum for low income and minority gifted learners (RM03180). Storrs, CT: National Research
Center on the Gifted and talented, University of Connecticut.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L. D., Hughes, C. E., & Little, C. A. (2000). An evaluation of the implementation of curriculum innovation: The impact of William and Mary units on schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 244–272.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2001). An analysis of gifted education curriculum mod- els. In F. A. Karnes & S. M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (pp. 93-131). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Tieso, C., & Stambaugh, T. (2007, November). Project Athena: Longitudinal effects of a reading intervention curriculum on teachers and students. Paper presented at the National Association for Gifted Children Annual Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: The Milken Family Foundation and Educational Testing Service.
Wright, S. P., Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personal Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.s.
