Abstract
The needs of gifted learners are often not met in post-industrial revolution classrooms which were modeled after the work day in an industrial setting. This setting is structured with a foreman (teacher) and workers (students) who switch from task to task in response to a bell which is tolled by the factory owner (principal). In this model, students generally have their own individual work station (desk) and work independently, but in unison, on the same task.
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
Anderson, L. (2014). Visual-spatial ability: Important in STEM, ignored in gifted education. Roeper Review, 36(2), 114–121.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. New York, NY: Longman.
Anderson, R. H. (1961). Arousing and sustaining the interest of gifted children in the study of science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 5, 35–41.
Anonymous. (1998). Informal science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 28(1), 17.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhardt & Winston.
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals; Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.
Brandwein, P. F. (1955/1981). The gifted student as future scientist: The high school student and his commitment to science. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace. (Reprinted in 1981, retitled The gifted student as future scientist and with a new preface, as vol 3 of A perspective through a retrospective, by the National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented, Los Angeles, New York.)
Butz, W. P., Kelly, T. K., Adamson, D. M., Bloom, G. A., Fossum, D., & Gross, M. E. (2004). Will the scientific and technology workforce meet the requirements of the federal government? Pittsburgh, PA: RAND.
Ciotti, J. E. (2010). Museums and planetariums: Bridging the gap between Hawaiian and astronomy through informal education—A case study. Forum on Public Policy Online, 2010(2), 1–14.
Coates, D. (2006). Science is not my thing: Primary teachers’ concerns about challenging gifted pupils. Education 3–13, 34(1), 49–64.
Coxon, S. V. (2012). Innovative allies: Spatial and creative abilities. Gifted Child Today, 35(4), 277–284.
Crane, V., Nicholson, H., Chen, M., & Bitgood, S. (1994). Informal science learning: What the research says about television, science museums, and community-based projects. Dedham, MA: Research Communications Ltd.
Demetrikopoulos, M. K., Pecore, J. L., Morris, L. G., & Thompson, W. D. (2011a, May). Modification of marine science education to meet the needs of gifted learners. Jacksonville, FL: Florida Marine Science Educators Association.
Demetrikopoulos, M. K., Thompson, W. D., Morris, L. G., & Pecore, J. L. (2011b, November). Scientific process and learning the habits of scientists essential in the teaching of neuroscience to gifted students. Washington, DC: Society for Neuroscience.
DeWitt, J., & Osborne, J. (2010). Recollections of exhibits: Stimulated-recall interviews with primary school children about science centre visits. International Journal of Science Education, 32(10), 1365–1388.
Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Dow, P. (1997). The sputnik-inspired reforms of the 60’s. Retrieved from http://www.nationalacademies.org/sputnik/dow2.htm
Erez, R. (2004). Freedom and creativity: An approach to science education for excellent students and its realization in the Israel arts and science academy’s curriculum. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(4), 133–140.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1992). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
Flattau, P. E., Bracken, J., Van Atta, R., Bandeh-Ahmadi, A., de la Cruz, R., & Sullivan, K. (2006). The national defense education act of 1958: Selected outcomes. Washington, DC: Science and Technology Policy Institute.
Folkomer, T. H. (1981). Comparison of three methods of teaching geology in junior high school. Journal of Geological Education, 29, 74–75.
Genc, M. (2013). Science diary of a gifted student. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(8), 390–395.
Havinghurst, R., Stivers, E., & DeHaan, R. F. (1955). A survey of the education of gifted children. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hennessey, B. A. (2004). Developing creativity in gifted children: The central importance of motivation and classroom climate (RM04202). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
Jolly, J. L. (2009). The national defense education act, current STEM initiative, and the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 32(2), 50–53.
Kahyaoglu, M. (2013). A comparison between gifted students and non-gifted students’ learning styles and their motivation styles towards science learning. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(12), 890–896.
Lang, Q. C., Wong, A. F. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Teacher-student interaction and gifted students’ attitudes toward chemistry in laboratory classrooms in Singapore. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(1), 18–28.
Laursen, S., Liston, C., Thiry, H., & Graf, J. (2007). What good is a scientist in the classroom? Participant outcomes and program design features for a short-duration science outreach intervention in K-12 classrooms. CBE-Life Sciences Online, 6, 49–64. Retrieved from http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/full/6/1/49 doi: 10.1187/cbe.06-05-0165
Loveless, T. (2008). High-achieving students in the era of NCLB. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the congress of the United States by the U. S. commissioner of education (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
MacKenzie, A., & White, R. (1982). Fieldwork in geography and long term memory structure. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 623–632.
Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669–685.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
Melber, L. M., & Abraham, L. M. (2002). Science education in U.S. natural history museums: A historical perspective. Science and Education, 11(1), 45–54.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Neu, T. W., Baum, S. M., & Cooper, C. R. (2004). Talent development in science: A unique tale of one student’s journey. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(1), 30–36.
Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. C. (1989). The generative learning model and its implications for science education studies. Science Education, 12, 57–87.
Park, J. (2011). Scientific creativity in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(3), 144–145.
Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Pride, L. D. (2014). Using learning stories to capture “Gifted” and “Hard Worker” mindsets within a NYC specialized high school for the sciences. Theory into Practice, 53(1), 41–47.
Rennie, L. J., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an agenda advancing research on science learning in out-of-school settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 112–120.
Seo, H., Lee, E. A., & Kim, K. H. (2005). Korean science teachers’ understanding of creativity in gifted education. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(2–3), 98–105.
Simon, H. A. (1996). Observations on the sciences of science learning. Paper prepared for the committee on developments in the science of learning for the sciences of science learning: An interdisciplinary discussion. Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Stenberg, R. J. (1997). A triarchic view of giftedness: Theory and practice. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook on gifted education (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tang, M., & Neber, H. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated science learning in high-achieving students: Differences related to nation, gender, and grade-level. High Ability Studies, 19(2), 103–116.
Thiry, H., Laursen, S. L., & Hunter, A. (2008). Professional development needs and outcomes for education-engaged scientists: A research-based framework. Retrieved from http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1529666/professional_development_needs_and_outcomes_for_educationengaged_scientists_a_researchbased/
VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Reis, R., Polan, D., & Avery, L. D. (1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200–211.
Vinci, T. G. (1968). Educational field trips for disadvantaged pupils in nonpublic schools: Evaluation of ESEA Title I projects in New York City 1968–1969 (No. ERC-E010e). New York, NY: Center for Urban Education, Educational Research Committee.
Wiszowaty, K. W. (1961). A special science program for gifted elementary school children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 5, 121–126.
Yoon, C. H. (2009). Self-regulated learning and instructional factors in the scientific inquiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 203–216.
Yuk, K. C., & Cramond, B. (2006). Program for enlightened and productive creativity illustrated with a Moire patterns lesson. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(4), 272–283.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bailey, L.M., Moris, L.G., Thompson, W.D., Feldman, S.B., Demetrikopoulos, M.K. (2016). Historical Contribution of Creativity to Development of Gifted Science Education in Formal and Informal Learning Environments. In: Demetrikopoulos, M.K., Pecore, J.L. (eds) Interplay of Creativity and Giftedness in Science. Advances in Creativity and Giftedness. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-163-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-163-2_1
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-163-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)