Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 13–23 | Cite as

Dangerous myths about “gifted” mathematics students

  • Linda Jensen Sheffield
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

A number of myths about mathematically gifted students, mathematics itself, and programs designed to serve these students tend to inhibit educators, parents and students themselves from developing students’ mathematical creativity, expertise and enjoyment. This paper discusses some of the myths that can discourage students’ mathematical development, restrict their understanding of mathematics, and/or are well-intentioned solutions with unintended consequences and includes research results from a few mathematics programs and other studies designed to counteract these myths and maximize students’ mathematical achievement, engagement and innovation.

Keywords

Mathematically gifted Promising Talented Mathematical expertise Mathematical creativity 

Abbreviations

AP

Advanced placement

CCSS-M

Common core state standards in mathematics

CERI

Centre for Educational Research and Innovation

ESSA

Every Student Succeeds Act

HS

High school

MAA

Mathematical Association of America

NAEP

National Assessment of Educational Progress

NAGC

National Association for Gifted Children

NCLB

No Child Left Behind

NCSM

National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics

NCTM

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

NSB

National Science Board

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PISA

Programme for International Student Assessment

STEM

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

TIMSS

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study

US

United States

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Binet, A. (1909). Les idées modernes sur les enfants. Paris: Flammarion. (Published in English as: Modern ideas about children. Menlo Park, CA: Suzanne Heisler, 1984).Google Scholar
  2. Boaler, J. (1997). When even women are losers: evaluating the experiences of ‘top set’ students. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(2), 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Bressoud, D., Camp, D., & Teague, D. (2012). Background to the MAA/NCTM statement on calculus. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  5. Bush, V. (1945). Science—the endless frontier. A report to the President on a program for postwar scientific research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  6. Butterworth, B. (1999). What counts: How every brain is hardwired for math. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  7. Cepelewicz, J. (2016). How does a mathematician’s brain differ from that of a mere mortal?. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-a-mathematician-s-brain-differ-from-that-of-a-mere-mortal/. Accessed 6 May 2016.
  8. Collins, C. A., & Gan, L. (2013). Does sorting students improve scores? An analysis of class composition. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. (2010). www.corestandards.org/Math/. Accessed 27 Nov 2015.
  10. Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: how the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Devlin, K. (1997). Mathematics: the science of patterns: the search for order in life, mind and the universe. New York: Scientific American Library.Google Scholar
  12. Devlin, K. (2000). The math gene: How mathematical thinking evolved and why numbers are like gossip. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Dweck, C. (2006a). Mindset: the new psychology of success. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  14. Dweck, C. (2006b). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In S. J. Ceci & W. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  15. Ellison, G., & Swanson, A. (2010). The gender gap in secondary school mathematics at high achievement levels: evidence from the American mathematics competitions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(2), 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finn, C. E., Jr., & Wright, B. L. (2015). Failing our brightest kids: the global challenge of educating high-ability students. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gavin, M. K., Casa, T. M., Adelson, J. L., Carroll, S. R., & Sheffield, L. J. (2009). The impact of advanced curriculum on the achievement of mathematically promising elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 188–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gavin, M. K., Casa, T. M., Adelson, J. L., & Firmender, J. M. (2013a). The impact of advanced geometry and measurement units on the achievement of grade 2 students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(3), 478–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gavin, M. K., Casa, T. M., Firmender, J. M., & Carroll, S. R. (2013b). The impact of advanced geometry and measurement units on the mathematics achievement of first-grade students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(2), 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hadamard, J. (1954). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins, M. D. (1936). A socio-psychological study of Negro children of superior intelligence. The Journal of Negro Education, 5(2), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnsen, S., & Sheffield, L. J. (Eds.). (2012). Using the common core state standards for mathematics with gifted and advanced learners. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.Google Scholar
  23. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Liljedahl, P. (2009). In the words of the creators. In R. Leikin, A. Berman and B. Koichu (eds.). Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students. pp 51–69.Google Scholar
  25. Loveless, T. (2009). Tracking and detracking: high achievers in Massachusetts middle schools. Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute.Google Scholar
  26. Loveless, T. (2013). 2013 Brown Center report on American education: How well are American students learning? Part III: Advanced math in eighth grade. http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/03/18-brown-center-report-loveless. Accessed 17 Nov 2015.
  27. Mann, E. (2006). Creativity: the essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted., 30(2), 236–260.Google Scholar
  28. Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (2009). Talent loss in mathematics: causes and solutions. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 149–163). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2014). Technology and Engineering Literacy Overall Results. www.nationsreportcard.gov/. Accessed 26 May 2016.
  30. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  31. National Science Board (NSB). (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. (NSB-10-33). Washington, DC: NSF.Google Scholar
  32. OECD (2015). The ABC of gender equality in education, aptitude, behavior, confidence. PISA: OEDC Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-gender-eng.pdf. Accessed 14 March 2015.
  33. OECD/CERI. (2007). Understanding the brain: the birth of a learning science. http://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40554190.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2016.
  34. Perry, M. J. (2015). 2015 SAT test results confirm pattern that’s persisted for 40+ years—high school boys are better at math than girls. https://www.aei.org/publication/2015-sat-test-results-confirm-pattern-thats-persisted-for-40-years-high-school-boys-are-better-at-math-than-girls/. Accessed 26 May 2016.
  35. Picciotto, H. (2016). Hyper-acceleration. http://www.mathedpage.org/teaching/acceleration.html. Accessed 4 May 2016.
  36. Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: a new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sawyer, W. W. (1955). Prelude to mathematics. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  38. Sheffield, L. J., Bennett, J., Berriozabal, M., DeArmond, M., & Wertheimer, R. (1999). Report of the NCTM task force on the mathematically promising. In L. J. Sheffield (Ed.), Developing mathematically promising students (pp. 309–316). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  39. Sheffield, L. J., Firmender, J., Gavin, M. K., & Casa, T. M. (2012). Project M2: mentoring young mathematicians. The 7th MCG International Conference Proceedings (pp. 269–276). Busan: Mathematical Creativity and Giftedness.Google Scholar
  40. Shenk, D. (2010). The genius in all of us: why everything you’ve been told about genetics, talent, and IQ is wrong. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  41. Tyre, P. (2016). The math revolution. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/03/the-math-revolution/426855/. Accessed 15 April 2016.
  42. Velez, W. Y., Maxwell, J. W., & Rose, C. (2013). Report on the 2012–2013 new doctoral recipients. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 61(8), 874–884.Google Scholar
  43. Yong, E. (2016). The genetics of staying in school. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/05/the-genetics-of-staying-in-school/482052/. Accessed 16 May 2016.

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northern Kentucky UniversityHighland HeightsUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options