Styles and Strategies of Educational Training
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32405/2309-3935-2022-4(87)-5-11Keywords:
gifted students, learning styles, learning strategies, curriculumAbstract
The article deals with a number of issues related to the organization of gifted learning. First of all, this is an assessment of gifted learning. Next, the educational styles of gifted and ordinary children are compared. It is emphasized on the volatile nature of giftedness and the need for various educational strategies in this regard. In particular, the emphasis is placed on the fact that the conformity or inadequacy of educational achievements endowed with their abilities is a preference for the style of their learning. As an example, temperament-based learning styles of gifted students are considered. In addition, self-directed gifted learning, the use of a dissociative strategy, an integrated learning material model, a triarchic model, and distance learning are described. It is also described the English model of gifted learning and the answer of the Spanish educational system to differences in curriculums, programs and teaching materials for gifted.
The article gives data on the impact of the style of learning and the environment on the CPS, in this regard, a revision of the Guildford concept, and also describes the purpose of cognitive tools for tracing the learning trajectory of gifted students.
A separate unit form researches devoted to educational programs. In particular, the peculiarities of standardized and nonstandardized curricula are considered. It is discussed the dilemma in the placement of educational programs for gifted, their features. In this connection, the toolkit for the analysis of educational units for gifted and, as a consequence, model of educational programs for this category of pupils is presented.
After that, educational programs on social studies, mathematics and natural sciences are characterized. In particular, an analysis of the random study of mathematics is given and the ways of solving the problems of mathematically gifted students are given.
Emphasis is placed on gifted girls' learning strategies. The data is presented on the influence of teacher-constructed and student-designed tasks for gifted achieving.
Downloads
References
1. Terry, A. W. (2000). An Early Glimpse: Service Learning from an Adolescent Perspective. JSGE. Vol. 11. No. 3.
2. Wallace, B., & Pierce, J. (1992). The Changing Nature of Giftedness: An Examination of Various Strategies for Provision. Gifted Education International. Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 64–71.
3. Chan, D.W. (2001). Learning Styles of Gifted and Nongifted Secondary Students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 45. No. 1. P. 35–44.
4. Oakland, Th., Joyce, D., & Glutting, J. (2000). Temperament-Based Learning Styles of Identifed Gifted and Nongifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 44. No. 3. P. 183–189.
5. Rayneri, L. J., Gerber, B. L., & Wiley, L. P. (2003). Gifted Achievers and Gifted Underachievers: The Impact of Learning Style Preferences in the Classroom. JSGE. Vol. 14. No. 4.
6. Deur, P. Van. (2008). Assessing the Effect of Explicit Teaching on High Reasoning Primary Students’ Knowledge of Self-Directed Learning. Gifted and Talented International. Vol. 23. No. 1.
7. McDonald, D., & Kirkby, R. J. (1995). Use of dissociation strategies when running becomes difcult: levels of ability and gender differences. High Ability Studies. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 73–81.
8. Henderson, L. (2007). Reflections from a Cassroom using the ICM. Gifted and Talented International. Vol. 22. No. 1.
9. Campbell, R. J., Eyre, D., Muijs, R. D., Neelands, J. G.A., & Robinson, W. (2007). The English Model of Gifted and Talented Education: Policy, Context and Challenges. Gifted and Talented International. Vol. 22. No. 1.
10. Touron, J., Iriarte, C., Reparaz, Ch., & Peralta, F. (1998). Diversity and School Curriculum: the response of the Spanish educational system to the needs of academically highly able pupils. High Ability Studies. Vol. 9. No. 2. P. 165–180.
11. Sternberg, R. J., Lipka, J., Newman, T., Wildfeuer, S., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2006). Triarchically-Based Instruction and Assessment of Sixth-Grade Mathematics in a Yup’ik Cultural Setting in Alaska. Gifted and Talented International. Vol. 21. No. 2.
12. Wallace, P. (2005). Distance education for gifted students: leveraging technology to expand academic options. High Ability Studies. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 77–86.
13. Ruscio, A. M., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Effects of Instructional Style on Problem-Solving Creativity. Creativity Research Journal. Vol. 12. No. 4. P. 251–266.
14. Russ, S. W., & Kaugars, A. S. (2001). Emotion in Children’s Play and Creative Problem Solving. Creativity Research Journal. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 211–219.
15. Mumford, M. D. (2001). Something Old, Something New: Revisiting Guilford’s Conception of Creative Problem Solving. Creativity Research Journal. Vol. 13. No. 3–4. P. 267–276.
16. Moss, S. A. (2002). The Impact of Environmental Clues in Problem Solving and Incubation: The Moderating Effect of Ability. Creativity Research Journal. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 207–211.
17. Diket, R. M. (2001). Metacognitive Instrument for Tracking Graduate Student Learning in Gifted Education. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 45. No.1. P. 24–34.
18. Rakow, S. R. (2008). Standards-Based v. StandardsEmbedded Curriculum: Not Just Semantics! GCT. Vol. 31. No. 1.
19. Jolly, J. L. (2006). Historical Perspectives: Curriculum for the Gifted Student: Lulu Stedman’s Contributions. GCT. Vol. 29. No. 1.
20. Kulieke, M. J., Hillary, J. C., Person, D., Wagner, W., & Schnabl, M. (1999). The Dilemma of Gifted Programming in the Secondary School: One District’s Response. JSGE. Vol. 11. No. 1.
21. Purcell, J. H., Burns, D. E., Tomlinson, C. A., Imbeau, M. B., & Martin, J. L. (2002). Bridging the Gap: A Tool and Technique to Analyze and Evaluate Gifted Education Curricular Units. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 46. No. 4. P. 306–321.
22. Tassel-Baska, J. Van, & Brown, E. F. (2008). Toward Best Practice. An Analysis of the Efcacy of Curriculum Models in Gifted Education. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 51. No.4. P. 342–358.
23. Little, C. A., Feng, A. X., Tassel-Baska, J.Van, Rogers, K. B., & Avery, L. D. (2007). A Study of Curriculum Effectiveness in Social Studies. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 51. No. 3. P. 272–284.
24. McMaster, L., & Betts, P. (2007). Making School Math Messy: Deepening Mathematical Appreciation in Gifted High School Students. Gifted and Talented International. Vol. 22. No. 2.
25. Gavin, M. K., Casa, T. M., Adelson, J. L., Carroll, S. R., Shefeld, L. J., & Spinelli A. M. (2007). Project M3: Mentoring Mathematical Minds – A Research-Based Curriculum for Talented Elementary Students. JAA. Vol. 18. No. 4.
26. Threlfall, J., & Hargreaves, M. (2008). The problemsolving methods of mathematically gifted and older averageattaining students. High Ability Studies. Vol. 19. No. 1. P. 83–98.
27. Heilbronner, N. N. (2009). Jumpstarting Jill: Strategies to Nurture Talented Girls in Your Science Classroom. GCT. Vol. 32. No. 1.
28. Thompson, D. D., & McDonald, D. M. (2007). Examining the Influence of Teacher-Constructed and Student-Constructed Assignments on the Achievement Patterns of Gifted and Advanced Sixth-Grade Students. JEG. Vol. 31. No. 2.
