The primary aim of Project M3: Mentoring Mathematical Minds was to develop and field test advanced units for mathematically promising elementary students based on exemplary practices in gifted and mathematics education. This article describes the development of the units and reports on mathematics achievement results for students in Grades 3 to 5 from 11 urban and suburban schools after exposure to the curriculum. Data analyses indicate statistically significant differences favoring each of the experimental groups over the comparison group on the ITBS (Iowa Tests of Basic Skills) Concepts and Estimation Test and on Open-Response Assessments at all three grade levels. Furthermore, the effect sizes range from 0.29 to 0.59 on the ITBS Concepts and Estimation Scale and 0.69 to 0.97 on the Open-Response Assessments. These results indicate that these units, designed to address the needs of mathematically promising students, positively affected their achievement.
Putting the Research to Use: To date, there is a paucity of research-based, challenging mathematics curriculum units designed specifically for mathematically promising elementary students. As a result, gifted programming for these students, if it exists within a district, often involves a collection of assorted math puzzles and problems or an above-grade-level textbook that was written for the average student. The findings from this curriculum study suggest to practitioners that mathematics curriculum units that are challenging and engaging with a focus on important math concepts and that encourage students to think and act like practicing mathematicians contribute to students' math achievement. The fact that this study was replicated with a second cohort strengthens the result. In addition, since almost 50% of the students came from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, the study illustrates that the curriculum was highly effective with this special population, while meeting the needs of all talented students.
Boix Mansilla, V., & Gardner, H. (2008). Disciplining the mind. Educational Leadership, 65, 14-19.
2.
Chapin, S.H., O'Connor, C., & Anderson, N.C. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, grades 1-6. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.
3.
Chazan, D., & Ball, D.L. (1995). Beyond exhortations not to tell: The teacher's role in discussion-intensive mathematics classes (Craft Paper 95-2). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
4.
Clements, D.H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a framework for "research-based curricula." Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 38, 35-70.
5.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
6.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
7.
Confrey, J. (2006). Comparing and contrasting the National Research Council report on evaluating curricular effectiveness with the What Works Clearing House approach. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 195-213.
8.
Forman, E.A. (1996). Learning mathematics as participation in classroom practice: Implications of sociocultural theory for educational reform. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 115-130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Forman, E.A. (2003). A sociocultural approach to mathematics reform: Speaking, inscribing, and doing mathematics within communities of practice . In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 333-352). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
10.
Fuson, K.C. (2004). Pre-K to grade 2 goals and standards: Achieving 21st-century mastery for all. In D. H. Clements & J. Sarama (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards in early childhood mathematics education (pp. 105-148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Gavin, M.K. (2005). Are we missing anyone? Identifying mathematically promising students. Gifted Education Communicator, Fall/Winter, 24-29.
12.
Gavin, M.K., & Adelson, J.L. (2007). Mathematics, elementary. In Callahan, C. & Plucker, J. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
13.
Hadamard, J.W. (1945). Essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement. (1997 ). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace.
15.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Fucson, K.C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., et al. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
16.
Hoover, H.D., Dunbar, S.B., Frisbie, D.A., Oberley, K.R., Ordman, V.L., & Naylor, R.J. (2003). The Iowa tests guide to research and development . Itasca, IL: Riverside.
17.
Kazemi, E. (1998). Discourse that promotes conceptual understanding . Teaching Children Mathematics, 4, 410-414.
18.
Kelly, A.E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological ? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115-128.
19.
Krutetskii, V.A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren (J. Teller, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1968)
20.
Mewborn, D.S., & Huberty, P.D. (1999). Questioning your way to the Standards. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6, 226-227, 243-246.
21.
Miller, R., & Mills, C. (1995). The Appalachia Model Mathematics Program for gifted students. Roeper Review, 18, 138-141.
22.
Moore, N.D., & Wood, S.S. (1988). Mathematics in elementary school: Mathematics with a gifted difference. Roeper Review, 10, 231-234.
23.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. ( 2008). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2007. Retrieve February 13, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2007494.pdf
24.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 1980). An agenda for action: Recommendations for school mathematics for the 1980s. Reston, VA: Author .
25.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: Author.
26.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
27.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
28.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics. Reston, VA: Author .
29.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2007). Curriculum research brief: Selecting the right curriculum . Reston, VA: Author.
30.
Pelletier, S., & Shore, B.M. (2003). The gifted learn, the novice, and the expert: Sharpening emerging views of giftedness. In D. C. Ambrose, L. Cohen, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration (pp. 237-281). New York: Hampton Press.
31.
Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning: Induction and analogy in mathematics, Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
33.
Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y.F., Congdon, R., & du Toit, M. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling . Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
34.
Renzulli, J.S., Leppien, J.H., & Hays, T.S. (2000). The multiple menu model: A practical guide for developing differentiated curriculum. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
35.
Robinson, A., Shore, B.M., & Enersen, D.L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press .
36.
Robinson, A., & Stanley, T.D. (1989). Teaching to talent: Evaluating an enriched accelerated mathematics program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted , 12, 253-267.
37.
Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H.C., & McNight, C.C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 525-559.
38.
Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (2003). (Ed.) Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn?Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
Sheffield, L.J. (1994). The development of gifted and talented mathematics students and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards (Research Monograph No. 9404). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
40.
Sheffield, L.J. (1999). Serving the needs of the mathematically promising . In L. J. Sheffield (Ed.), Developing mathematically promising students (pp. 43-55). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
41.
Sheffield, L.J. (Chair), Bennett, J. , Berriozabal, M., DeArmond, M., & Wertheimer , R. (1999). Report of the task force on the mathematically promising. In L. J. Sheffield (Ed.), Developing mathematically promising students (pp. 309-316). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
42.
Sowell, E.J. (1993). Programs for mathematically gifted students: A review of empirical research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 124-129.
43.
Sowell, E.J., Bergwell, L., Zeigler, A.J., & Cartwright, R.M. (1990). Identification and description of mathematically gifted students: A review of empirical research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 147-154.
44.
Sriraman, B. (2004). Gifted ninth graders' notions of proof: Investigating parallels in approaches of mathematically gifted students and professional mathematicians. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 267-292.
45.
Tieso, C.L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore [Electronic version]. Roeper Review, 26, 29-36.
46.
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. (2008). TIMMS 2007 results. Retrieved February 13, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001.pdf
47.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: One school's journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 77-87.
48.
Tomlinson, C.A., Kaplan, S.N., Renzulli, J.S., Purcell, J., Leppien, J., & Burns, D. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
49.
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, 30-44.
50.
Wheatley, G.H. (1983). A mathematics curriculum for the gifted and talented . Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 77-80.
51.
Wood, T. (1999). Creating context for argument in mathematics class . Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 171-191.
