Several conceptions of curriculum have shaped the thinking of those working with gifted students. The roots of each of these conceptions can also be found in extant curriculum for the gifted; they represent strong philosophical orientations for what curriculum for the gifted might be. Sylwester (2003) suggests that students learn best when there is an emotional connection between the student, the teacher, and the content or curriculum. Given the intensities, precocity, and complexities of gifted students, the issues of emotional connections within curriculum and instruction are paramount. Researchers in neuroscience also suggest the importance of appropriate match of curriculum to students. Tomlinson and Kalbfleisch (1998, p. 54) explain that “[i]f a student engages in a curriculum that is well beyond that student’s level of readiness, stress results, and the brain over produces key neurotransmitters that impede learning (Koob, Cole, Swerdlow, & le Modal, 1990). Conversely, if the curriculum is redundant for the child—beneath that student’s level of readiness—the brain is not inclined to engage or respond and, consequently, does not release the levels of dopamine, noradrenalin, serotonin, and other neurochemicals needed for optimal learning. The result is apathy (Shultz, Dayan, &Montague, 1997).”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (1999). Assessing vocational preferences among gifted adolescents adds incremental validity to abilities: A discriminant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10-year interval. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 777–786.
Arnold, K., & Subotnik, R. (1994). Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Banks, J. (1995). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 3–24). New York: Macmillan.
Baum, S. (1988). Enrichment program for the gifted learning disabled students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 226–230.
Baum, S., Renzulli, J., & Herbert, T. P. (1995). Reversing under-achievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224–235.
Benbow, C. P., & Arjmand, O. (1990). Predictors of high academic achievement in mathematics and science by mathematically talented students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 430–431.
Betts, G. T., & Kercher, J. K. (1999). Autonomous learner model: Optimizing ability—Expanded and updated. Greeley, CO: ALPS Publishing.
Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.
Bracken, B. A., VanTassel-Baska, J., Brown, E. F., & Feng, A. (2007). Project Athena: A tale of two studies. In J. VanTassel-Baska, T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked Gems: A National perspective on low-income promising learners. (pp. 63–67). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
Burns, D. (1988). The effects of group training activities on students’ creative productivity. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Technical report of research studies related to the revolving door identification model (2nd ed., pp. 147–174). Storrs: Research Report Series, School of Education, University of Connecticut.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. The University of Iowa, Iowa City: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cross, T. (2000). On the social and emotional lives of gifted children. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper-Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Delcourt, M. A. B. (1993). Creative productivity among secondary school students: Combining energy, interest, and imagination. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 23–31.
Delcourt, M. A. B. (1994). Characteristics of high-level creative productivity: A longitudinal study of students identified by Renzulli’s three misconceptions of greatness. In R. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 375–400). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Enersen, D. (1996). Developing talent in Saturday and summer programs. Gifted Education International, 11(3), 159–163.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Kolloff, M. B. (1986). The Purdue Three-Stage Model for Gifted Education. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 126–152). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Robinson-Wyman, A. (1986). The Purdue Secondary Model for gifted education. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 153–179). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Ford, D. Y. (2002). Racial identity among gifted African American students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Gallagher, J., & Gallagher, S. (1994). Teaching the gifted child (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Greene, M. J. (2003). Gifted adrift? Career counseling of the gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 25, 66–72.
Halsted, J. (2002). Some of my best friends are books: Guiding gifted readers from pre-school to high school (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Herbert, T. P. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16, 22–28.
Hirsch, E. D. (1989). Cultural literacy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Keating, D. P. (Ed.). (1976). Intellectual talent: Research and development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kolloff, M. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1984). The effects of enrichment on self-concept and creative thinking. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 53–57.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73–77.
Little, C., Feng., A., VanTassel-Baska, J., Rogers., K., & Avery., L. (2006, in press). A study of curriculum effectiveness in social studies. Gifted Child Quarterly.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1994). The study of mathematically precocious youth: The first three decades of a planned 50-year study of intellectual talent. In R. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 375–400). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Competing models of emotional intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), The handbook of intelligence (pp. 396–420). New York: Cambridge University Press.
McLean, J. E., & Chisson, B. S. (1980). Talented unlimited program: Summary of research findings for 1979–80. Mobile, AL: Mobile County Public Schools.
Moon, S. M. (2003). Personal talent. High Ability Studies, 14, 5–21.
Moon, S., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). The program for academic and creative enrichment (PACE): A follow-up study 10 years later. In R. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 375–400). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillon, D. R. (1994). Long-term effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 38–48.
Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S.M. (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1991). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research and curriculum (pp. 570–608). New York: Macmillan.
Olenchak, F. R. (1999). Affective development of gifted students with nontraditional talents. Roeper Review, 21, 293–297.
Olenchak, F. R., & Renzulli, J. S. (1989). The effectiveness of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model on selected aspects of elementary school change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 36–46.
Pennebaker, J. (1997). Opening up: The healing power of expressing emotions. New York: Guilford Press.
Peterson, J. S. (2003). Listening: Resisting the urge to fix them. In K. McCluskey & A. M. Mays (Eds.), Mentoring for talent development (pp. 126–142). Lennox, SD: Reclaiming Youth International.
Reis, S. M., & Purcell, J. H. (1993). An analysis of content elimination and strategies used by elementary classroom teachers in the curriculum compacting process. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 147–170.
Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J. M., & Purcell, J. H. (1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 123–129.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (Ed.). (1988). Technical report of research studies related to the revolving door identification model. Storrs: Bureau of Educational Research, The University of Connecticut.
Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M., & Reis, S. M. (2003). Enrichment clusters: A practical plan for real-world, student-driven learning. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., Reis, S. M., & Smith, L. (1981). The revolving-door model: A new way of identifying the gifted. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 648–649.
Rodd, J. (1999). Encouraging young children’s critical and creative thinking skills: An approach in one English elementary school. Childhood Education, 75, 350–354.
Salovey, P., Bedell, B., Detweiler, J., & Mayer, J. (2000). Current directions in emotional intelligence research. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 504–520). New York: Guilford Press.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211.
Schack, G. D., Starko, A. J., & Burns, D. E. (1991). Self-efficacy and creative productivity: Three studies of above average ability children. Journal of Research in Education, 1, 44–52.
Schlichter, C. (1986). Talents unlimited: Applying the multiple talent approach in mainstream and gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Schlichter, C. L., & Palmer, W. R. (Eds.). (1993). Thinking smart: A premiere of the talents unlimited model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Spady, W. G. (2000). Breaking out of the box. American School Board Journal, 187(1), 52–53.
Stambaugh, T., & Stambaugh, T. (2002). Meeting the social and emotional needs of gifted students: A model for practitioners. Presentation at the All Ohio Counselors Association, Columbus, OH.
Stanley, J. C., Keating, D., & Fox, L. (1974). Mathematical talent. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sternberg, R. (1981). A componential theory of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 86–93.
Sternberg, R., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1995). The triadic model applied to identify, teach, and assess gifted children. Roeper Review, 17, 255–260.
Sternberg, R. J., Ferrari, M., Clinkenbeard, P., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1996). Identification, instruction, and assessment of gifted children: A construct validation of a triarchic model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 129–137.
Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998a). Teaching for successful intelligence raises school achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 667–699.
Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998b). Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 374–384.
Strop, J. (2002). Meeting the social emotional needs of gifted adolescents: A personal and contextual journey. Understanding Our Gifted, 14(3), 7–11.
Swiatek, M. A. (1998). Helping gifted adolescents cope with social stigma. Gifted Child Today, 21(1), 42–46.
Swiatek, M. A. (2000). A decade of longitudinal research on academic acceleration through the study of mathematically precocious youth. Roeper Review, 24, 141–144.
Sylwester, R. (2003). A biological brain in a cultural classroom: Enhancing cognitive and social development through collaborative classroom management (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Taylor, C. W., Ghiselin, B., Wolfer, J., Loy, L., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (1964). Development of a theory of education from psychology and other basic research findings. Final Report, USOE Cooperative Research Project, No. 621. Salt Lake City: University of Utah.
Tomlinson, C., & Kalbfleisch. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain—A call for differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 52–55.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instruction models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 164–169.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Research on curriculum models in gifted education. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Curriculum and instruction planning and design for gifted learners (pp. 13–34). Denver, CO: Love.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L. D., Little, C. A., & Hughes, C. E. (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., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. (1998). A national pilot study of science curriculum effectiveness for high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200–211.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Feng, A. (Eds.). (2004). Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D. T., Hughes, C. E., & Boyce, L. N. (1996). A study of language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 461–480.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Little, C. (2003). Content-based curriculum for high ability learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Zuo, L., Avery, L. D., & Little, C. A. (2002). A curriculum study of gifted student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46 (1), 30–44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Van Tassel-Baska, J., Stambaugh, T. (2008). Curriculum and Instructional Considerations in Programs for the Gifted. In: Pfeiffer, S.I. (eds) Handbook of Giftedness in Children. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74401-8_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74401-8_18
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-74399-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-74401-8
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)