Learning Strategies for the Gifted
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63437/Keywords:
gifted individuals, gifted learning strategies, special educational programs, distance learning, summer courses, special programs for teachersAbstract
The article analyzes educational strategies that teachers can use to work with gifted individuals. Mostly these strategies
apply to younger and upper secondary school pupils. At the same time, they can also be used for student youth education.
The main attention is paid to the analysis of special educational programs for students of junior and high school. Specifically,
such special educational programs as school at school and other non-inclusive programs are considered. From the above
analysis it is clear those special educational programs for gifted are of a different nature. Some of them are aimed at
improving the efficiency of education in the system of their formal education, such as organizing their accelerated or
enriched learning in homogeneous or heterogeneous educational environments, respectively. Other special educational
programs are aimed at providing gifted advisory services (the Catalyst program). However, the largest number of these
programs is devoted to giving gifted individuals additional educational services.
Among the programs of this type, the program focuses on the development of gifted creative potential. As a result, an analysis
of programs for training creativity, improving creativity and training attention, attracting talented to the visual activities,
concludes on the effectiveness of these programs. The special educational programs for expanding and deepening knowledge
gifted in mathematics and natural sciences are not lagging behind in popularity. For example, programs that provide for the
creation of resident schools and academies for mathematically gifted, the effectiveness of attracting science-research-gifted
programs, etc. are analyzed. An example of a program aimed at developing the talents of gifted individuals is also provided. A
separate unit analyzes the organizational forms of the introduction of special educational programs for gifted. First of all, this
is a remote mastering. Summer intensive courses have also become widespread. In this regard, data is given on the impact of
such programs on the social perception of gifted, sexual differences in the choice of summer courses by gifted.
A number of special educational programs for the gifted individuals with low socioeconomic status, as well as those
from the social minorities in the USA are analyzed. The vast majority of special educational programs for gifted have been
developed and implemented in this country. However, today such programs are being created in other countries, including
China, Israel, Portugal, etc. The analysis of dual-purpose programs (development of talents of gifted senior pupils and
their involvement in the mastering of certain courses at higher education institutions) was also conducted. Examples of
mentoring and tutoring programs are given. In the end, the focus is on several programs for teachers who work with gifted,
and the results of content analysis of the special educational programs for the latter.
Downloads
References
1. Winebrenner, S. (2006). Effective Teaching
Strategies for Open Enrollment Honors and AP Classes.
JSGE. Vol. 17. No. 3.
2. Matthews, D., & Kitchen, J. (2007). School-Withina-School Gifted Programs. Perceptions of Students and
Teachers in Public Secondary Schools. Gifted Child
Quarterly. Vol. 51. No. 3. P. 256–271.
3. Bernal, E. M. (2003). To No Longer Educate the
Gifted: Programming for Gifted Students Beyond the Era
of Inclusionism. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 47. No. 3.
P. 183–191.
4. Landrum, M. S. (2001). An Evaluation of the
Catalyst Program: Consultation and Collaboration in
Gifted Education. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 45. No. 2.
P. 139–151.
5. Yuk, K. C., & Cramond, B. (2006). Program for
Enlightened and Productive Creativity Illustrated with a
Moiré Patterns Lesson. JSGE. Vol. 17. No. 4.
1. Ma, H.-H. (2006). A Synthetic Analysis of the
Effectiveness of Single Components and Packages
in Creativity Training Programs. Creativity Research
Journal. Vol. 18. No. 4. P. 435–446.
2. Memmert, D. (2007). Can Creativity Be Improved
by an Attention-Broadening Training Program? An
Exploratory Study Focusing on Team Sports. Creativity
Research Journal. Vol. 19. No. 2–3. P. 281–291.
3. Daniel, R. (2000). Performing and Visual Arts
Schools: A Guide to Characteristics, Options, and
Successes. JSGE. Vol. 12. No. 1.
4. Hunsaker, S. (2005). Outcomes of Creativity
Training Programs. Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 49.
No. 4. P. 292–299.
5. Jarwan, F. A., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Residential
schools of mathematics and science in the USA: overview
of the admission process. High Ability Studies. Vol. 5.
No. 2. P. 176–184.
6. Robinson, G. (2004). Replicating a Successful
Authentic Science Research Program: An Interview with
Dr. Robert Pavlica. JSGE. Vol. 15. No. 4.
7. Brandt, R. (1981). On Mathematically Talented
Youth: A Conversation with Julian Stanley. Educational
Leadership. Vol. 39. No. 2. P. 101–106.
8. Jones, B. M., Fleming, D. L., Henderson, J., &
Henderson, C. E. (2002). Common Denominators:
Assessing Hesitancy to Apply to a Selective Residential
Math and Science Academy. JSGE. Vol. 13. No. 4.
9. Lee, S.-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Donahue, R., &
Weimholt, K. (2007). The Effects of a Service-Learning
Program on the Development of Civic Attitudes and
Behaviors Among Academically Talented Adolescents.
JEG. Vol. 31. No. 2.
10. Adams, C. M., & Cross, T. L. (1999/2000).
Distance Learning Opportunities for Academically Gifted
Students. JSGE. Vol. 11. No. 2.
11. Hsu, L. (2003). Measuring the Effectiveness of
Summer Intensive Physics Courses for Gifted Students:
A Pilot Study and Agenda for Research. Gifted Child
Quarterly. Vol. 47. No. 3. P. 212–218.
12. Chin, C. S., & Harrington, D. M. (2009).
Inner Spark: A Creative Summer School and Artistic
Community for Teenagers with Visual Arts Talent. GCT.
Vol. 32. No. 1.
13. Schweigardt, W. J., Worrell, F. C., & Hale, R.
J. (2001). Gender Differences in the Motivation for
and Selection of Courses in a Summer Program for
Academically Talented Students. Gifted Child Quarterly.
Vol. 45. No. 4. P. 283–293.
14. Rinn, A. N. (2006). Effects of a Summer Program
on the Social Self-Concepts of Gifted Adolescents. JSGE.
Vol. 17. No. 2.
15. Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, Sh. L. (1990). Intensive
educational intervention for children of poverty.
Intelligence. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 1–9.
16. Tassel-Baska, J. Van, & Stambaugh, T. (2006).
Project Athena: A Pathway to Advanced Literacy
Development for Children of Poverty. GCT. Vol. 29. No. 2.
17. Cross, T. L., & Burney, V. H. (2005). High
Ability, Rural, and Poor: Lessons from Project Aspire and
Implications for School Counselors. JSGE. Vol. 16. No. 4.
18. Lee, S.-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Peternel,
G. (2009). Follow-Up with Students After 6 Years of
Participation in Project EXCITE. Gifted Child Quarterly.
Vol. 53. No. 2. P. 137–156.
19. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2006). Addressing the
Achievement Gap Between Minority and Nonminority
Children: Increasing Access and Achievement Through
Project EXCITE. GCT. Vol. 29. No. 2.
20. Worrell, F. C., Szarko, J. E., & Gabelko, N. H.
(2001). Multi-Year Persistence of Nontraditional Students
in an Academic Talent Development Program. JSGE.
Vol. 12. No. 2.
21. Hadar, L., & Erez, R. (2007). Learning Dilemmas
of Curriculum: Development at IASA and its Influence
on Students’ Concepts of Learning. Gifted and Talented
International. Vol. 22. No. 1.
22. Nogueira, S. M. (2006). MORCEGOS: A
Portuguese Enrichment Program of Creativity Pilot
Study with Gifted Students and Students with Learning
Difficulties. Creativity Research Journal. Vol. 18. No. 1.
P. 45–54.
23. Chan, D. W., Cheung, P. C., Chan, A. S. K., Leung,
W. W.-man, Leung, K.-wai. (2000). Evaluating the
Chinese University Summer Gifted Program for Junior
Secondary Students in Hong Kong. JSGE. Vol. 11. No. 3.
24. Chan, D. W. (2003). Assessing Adjustment Problems
of Gifted Students in Hong Kong: The Development of
the Student Adjustment Problems Inventory. Gifted Child
Quarterly. Vol. 47. No. 2. P. 107–117.
25. Gallagher, J. J. (2001). Personnel Preparation
and Secondary Education Programs For Gifted Students.
JSGE. Vol. 12. No. 3.
26. McCarthy, C. R. (1999). Dual-Enrollment
Programs: Legislation Helps High School Students Enroll
in College Courses. JSGE. Vol. 11. No. 1.
27. Lim, T. K. (1996). Nurturing Giftedness Through
the Mentor-Link Program. High Ability Studies. Vol. 7.
No. 2. P. 169–177.
28. Haydey, D. C., & Deakin, A. (2007). A Short
Term Tutoring Program: Summarizing Chemistry Text
with Grade 12 Gifted Students. Gifted and Talented
International. Vol. 22. No. 2.
29. Siegel, D., & Powell, T. (2004). Exploring Teacher
Biases When Nominating Students for Gifted Programs.
Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 48. No. 1. P. 21–29.
30. Baker, Ph. A. (2008). The ACCESS Enrichment
Model for an Undergraduate Education Program. Gifted
and Talented International. Vol. 23. No. 1.
31. Tassel-Baska, J. Van. (2006). A Content Analysis
of Evaluation Findings Across 20 Gifted Programs: A
Clarion Call for Enhanced Gifted Program Development.
Gifted Child Quarterly. Vol. 50. No. 3. P. 199–215.
