The effect of a self-directed mathematics program on the math achievement of students who are gifted and talented (GT) was evaluated. An instructional management system, Accelerated Math (Advantage Learning Systems, 1998a), was used to assign instruction, monitor student progress, and provide teachers with the information they needed to differentiate math instruction for GT learners. Students whose teachers used the instructional management system significantly outperformed the GT students who participated only in the standard curriculum. Both quantitative and qualitative differences in the performance of GT and non-GT students were identified and within-group variability among GT students is considered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlgozzineB.YsseldykeJ. (1992). Strategies and tactics for effective instruction. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
2.
ArchambaultF.WestbergK.BrownS.HallmarkB.ZhangW.EmmonsC. (1993). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 13–28.
3.
BeatonA.MullisI.MartinM.GonzalezE.KellyD.SmithT. (1996). Mathematics achievement in the middle school years: IEA's third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
4.
BergerS. (1991). Differentiating curriculum for gifted students (ERIC digest #E510). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 342 175).
5.
CallahanC. (1997). Giftedness. In BearG.MinkeK.ThomasA. (Eds.), Children's needs II: Development, problems, and alternatives (pp. 431–448). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
6.
DavisG.RimmS. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
7.
HowellD. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology. Duxbury, MA: Thomas Learning.
8.
LappanG. (1999). Mathematics for all must include high-ability and highly motivated students. NCTM News Bulletin, 35(8), 3.
9.
MillerR. (1990). Discovering mathematical talent. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 321 487).
10.
ReeseC.MillerK.MazzeoJ.DosseyJ. (1997). NAEP 1996 mathematics report card for the nation and the states: Findings from the national assessment of educational progress (Publication No. NCES 97–488). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Renaissance Learning. (1998b). STAR Math users manual. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. (See also http://www.renlearn.com).
13.
RenzulliJ.ReisS. (1998). Talent development through curriculum differentiation. NASSP Bulletin, 82, 61–74.
14.
RoetsL. (1993). Modifying standard curriculum for high ability students. New York: Leadership Publishers.
15.
SheffieldJ. (1994). The development of gifted and talented mathematics students and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
16.
SpicuzzaR.YsseldykeJ.LemkuilA.KosciolekS.BoysC.TeelucksinghE. (2001). Journal of School Psychology, 39, 521–542.
17.
StanleyJ.BenbowC. (1983). SMPY's first decade: Ten years of posing problems and solving them. Journal of Special Education, 17, 11–25.
18.
TomlinsonC. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
19.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993a). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
20.
U.S. Department of Education. (1993b). Anthology on gifted and talented education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
21.
WalbergH. (1984). Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 19–27.
22.
WaxmanB.RobinsonN.MukhopadhyayS. (1996). Teachers nurturing math-talented young children. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
23.
WestbergK.ArchambaultF.DobynsS.SalvinT. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(2), 29–56.
24.
YsseldykeJ.ChristensonS. (1987). Evaluating students instructional environments. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 17–24.
25.
YsseldykeJ.ElliottJ. (1999). Effective instructional practices: Implications for assessing instructional environments. In ReynoldsC.GutkinT. (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology. New York: Wiley.
26.
YsseldykeJ.TardrewS. (2002). Differentiating math instruction: A large scale study of Accelerated Math. Madison, WI: Renaissance Learning.
27.
YsseldykeJ.SpicuzzaR.KosciolekS.BoysC. (2003). Effects of a learning information system on mathematics achievement and classroom structure. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 163–173.
28.
YsseldykeJ.SpicuzzaR.KosciolekS.TeelucksinghE.BoysC.LemkuilA. (2003). Using a curriculum-based instructional management system to enhance math achievement in urban schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8, 247–265.
