Nurturing Mathematical Promise in a Regular Elementary Classroom: Exploring the Role of the Teacher and Classroom Environment

REFERENCES

• Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center of the Gifted and Talented.
   Google Scholar
• Ashman, A. F., & Gillies, R. M. (1997). Children’s cooperative behavior and interactions in trained and untrained work groups in regular classrooms. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 261–279. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(97)00007-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433–456). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, J. (2005). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education and social science (4th ed.). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: McKay.
   Google Scholar
• Borland, J. H. (2009). Gifted education without gifted programs or gifted students: An anti-model. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little (Eds.), Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted & talented (2nd ed., pp. 105–118). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brighton, C. M., Hertberg, H. L., Moon, T. R., Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2005). The feasibility of high-end learning in a diverse middle school. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research methods. London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Casey, R. (1999). A key concepts model for teaching and learning mathematics. Mathematics in School, 28(3), 13–14.
   Google Scholar
• Casey, R. (2002). A framework for teaching mathematically promising pupils. In V. Koshy & J. Murray (Eds.), Unlocking numeracy: A guide for primary schools (pp. 122–145). London, England: David Fulton.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, P. (2009). We can do it! Year 2: Using and applying maths challenges. London, England: BEAM Education.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families). (2009). Mathematics resource library [Homepage of DCSF; Standards Site]. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809091832/http:/teachingandlearningresources.org.uk/primary/mathematics
   Google Scholar
• Ernest, P. (1985). Special educational needs in mathematics. Castme Journal, 6(1), 22–28.
   Google Scholar
• Ernest, P. (1998). Recent developments in mathematical thinking. In R. Burden & M. Williams (Eds.), Thinking through the curriculum (pp. 113–134). London, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Esmonde, I. (2012). Mathematics learning in groups: Analysing equity within an activity structure. In B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann (Ed.), Equity in discourse for mathematics education: Theories, practices, and policies (pp. 51–67). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Eurydice. (2006). Specific educational measures to promote all forms of giftedness at school in Europe: Working document. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice European Unit.
   Google Scholar
• Eyre, D. (2001). An effective primary school for the gifted and talented. In D. Eyre & L. McClure (Eds.), Curriculum provision for the gifted and talented in the primary school: English, maths, science, and ICT (pp. 1–27). London, England: NACE, David Fulton.
   Google Scholar
• Fielker, D. (1997). Extending mathematical ability through interactive whole class teaching. London, England: Hodder and Stoughton.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, J. (1998). Educating the very able: Current international research. London, England: Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, J., Raffan, J., & Warwick, I. (2010). Worldwide provision to develop gifts and talents: An international survey. Reading, England: CfBT Education Trust.
   Google Scholar
• Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112. doi:10.1177/001698628502900302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory 1. High Ability Studies, 15, 119–147. doi:10.1080/1359813042000314682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Ability Studies, 21, 81–99. doi:10.1080/13598139.2010.525341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, F. (2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted education. International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence, 3(1), 3–22.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, H. (2006). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, H. (Ed). (2010). Good work: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
   Google Scholar
• Gillies, R. M. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 35–49. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00072-7
   Google Scholar
• Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 197–213. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00068-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 251–253. doi:10.1177/0016986209346927
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30. doi:10.1086/428763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher: A qualitative introduction to school-based research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Karolyi, C., Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple intelligences: A perspective on giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 100–112). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Koshy, V. (2001). Teaching mathematics to able children. London, England: David Fulton.
   Google Scholar
• Koshy, V., & Casey, R. (1997). Curriculum provision for higher-ability pupils. Support for Learning, 12, 66–69. doi:10.1111/1467-9604.00016
   Google Scholar
• Koshy, V., & Casey, R. (2005). Actualizing mathematical promise: Possible contributing factors. Gifted Education International, 20, 293–305. doi:10.1177/026142940502000305
   Google Scholar
• Koshy, V., Ernest, P., & Casey, R. (2009). Mathematically gifted and talented learners: Theory and practice. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40, 213–228. doi:10.1080/00207390802566907
   Google Scholar
• Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moon, T. R., Brighton, C. M., & Callahan, C. M. (2003). State standardized testing programs: Friend or foe of gifted education? Roeper Review, 25, 49–60. doi:10.1080/02783190309554199
   Google Scholar
• Moon, T. R., Callahan, C. M., Tomlinson, C. A., & Miller, E. M. (2002). Middle school classrooms: Teachers’ reported practices and student perceptions (RM 02164). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
   Google Scholar
• Nathan, M. (2007). Badger maths problem solving: Years 1–2. Stevenage, Hertfordshire, England: Badger.
   Google Scholar
• Office for Standards in Education. (2009). Gifted and talented pupils in schools. London, England: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Office for Standards in Education. (2013). The most able students: Are they doing as well as they should in our non-selective secondary schools? London, England: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Office for Standards in Education. (2015). The most able students: An update on progress since 2013. London, England: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conception of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Renzulli, J. S. (1998). A rising tide lifts all ships: Developing the gifts and talents of all students. The Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 104–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 150–159. doi:10.1177/0016986212444901
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Sheffield, L. J. (2003). Extending the challenge in mathematics: Developing mathematical promise in K–8 students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sisk, D. (2009). Myth 13: The regular classroom teacher can “go it alone.” Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 269–271. doi:10.1177/0016986209346939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slavin, R. E., & Cooper, R. (1999). Improving intergroup relations: Lessons learned from cooperative learning programs. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 647–663. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Moon, S. M. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 39–53. doi:10.1177/0016986210383155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS as a model of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 14, 109–137. doi:10.1080/1359813032000163807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Testbase. (2008). KS2 maths: Ready made tests. Retrieved from http://www.testbase.co.uk/sec/resource.asp
   Google Scholar
• Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Differentiating instruction for advanced learners in the mixed-ability middle school classroom (ERIC Digest E536). Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 389 141)
   Google Scholar
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
   Google Scholar
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
   Google Scholar
• Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J. H., Leppien, J. H., Burns, D. E., & Imbeau, M. B. (2009). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop learner potential and challenge advanced learners (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
   Google Scholar
• VanTassel-Baska, J. (2004). Curriculum for gifted and talented students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
   Google Scholar
• VanTassel-Baska, J., & Little, C. A. (Eds.). (2009). Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
   Google Scholar
• Westberg, K. L., & Daoust, M. E. (2004). The results of the replication of the classroom practices survey replication in two states. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, P. Sir (2008). Independent review of mathematics teaching in early years settings and primary schools: Final report. Nottingham, England: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research. London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ziegler, A., & Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Towards a systemic theory of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 23, 3–30. doi:10.1080/13598139.2012.679085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar