The Reflections of Differentiated Science Education For Gifted Students on Prospective Classroom Teachers

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 280 - 307, 01.04.2021

Neşe Kutlu Abu

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.40.8.2

Öz

This study was designed to delve into the impact of differentiated science education for gifted students on prospective classroom teachers in terms of some variables. A concurrent embedded research design from mixed research methodologies was employed in this study. The participants were 69 sophomore students studying in the Department of Primary Education in the Faculty of Education in Amasya University during 2018-2019 academic year. The data collection instruments were the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Scale, the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale, the Competence Scale for Science Teaching, the Outdoor Science Activities Performing Scale, and a structured interview form. For the qualitative data, a deductive approach was employed, and themes and codes were used to show the findings. Based on the results, there is evidence to suggest that differentiated science education applications develop prospective teachers’ science teaching efficacy beliefs, their competences for learning science, their academic self-efficacies, and their outdoor science activity performing beliefs. The findings also show most of the participants hold the belief that their educational background contributes to their professional and personal developments as well as science teaching skills, and helps them gain awareness of such concepts as giftedness, outdoor learning, and differentiated teaching. Several recommendations for making differentiated education prevalent for prospective teachers are provided.

Anahtar Kelimeler

differentiated science teaching, prospective classroom teachers, Science teaching efficacy belief

Teşekkür

A part of this study was presented as an oral presentation at International Conference on Science, Mathematics, Entrepreneurship and Technology Education (2019).

Kaynakça

• Akar, I. (2020). Consensus on the competencies for a classroom teacher to support gifted students in the regular classroom: A delphi study, International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(1), 67-83. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.228.6
• Archambault, F. X., Brown, S., Hallmark, B. W. Zhang, W. & Emmons, C. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: results of a national survey of classroom teachers, The National Research Center On The Gifted And Talented, The University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut. https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rm93102.pdf
• Arnold, M. E., Bourdeau, V. D. & Nott, B. D. (2013). Measuring science inquiry skills in youth development programs: The Science Process Skills Inventory, 8(1), 5-15. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2013.103
• Avery, L. M., & Meyer, D. Z. (2012). Teaching science as science is practiced: Opportunities and limits for enhancing preservice elementary teachers’ self-efficacy for science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 395-409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00159.x
• Ayotte-Beaudet, J. P., Potvin, P., Lapierre, H. G. & Glackin, M. (2017). Teaching and learning science outdoors in schools’ immediate surroundings at K-12 levels: A meta-synthesis, Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 5343-5363. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00833a
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
• Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(4), 287-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01663995
• Benny, N. & Blonder, R. (2016). Factors that promote/inhibit teaching gifted students in a regular class: results from a professional development program for chemistry teachers, Education Research International, Article ID 2742905, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2742905
• Bernal, E. M. (2003). To no longer educate the gifted: programming for gifted students beyond the era of inclusions, Gifted Child Quarterly, 47 (3), 183-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700302
• Best, M., Dickinson, C., Hugstad-Vaa Leer, H., Courtney, & Molly, K. (2017). The impact of implementing core curriculum in an outdoor classroom on primary-aged students’ academic achievement, Masters of Arts in Education Action Research Papers. https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/233/
• Bong, M., Cho, C., Ahn, H. S., & Kim, H. J. (2012). Comparison of self-beliefs for predicting student motivation and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(5), 336–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.627401
• Borders, C., Woodley, S. & Moore, E. (2014). Inclusion and giftedness. In J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Gifted education: current perspective and issues. USA: British Library Catalouguing Data.
• Bleicher, R. E., & Lindgren, J. (2005). Success in science learning and preservice science teaching self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 205- 225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-005-4861-1
• Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Oh, S., Azana, A. P. & Haieley, E. P. (2015). What works in gifted education: documenting the effects of an integrated curricular/instructional model for gifted students, American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 137-167. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214549448
• Caldwell, D. W. (2012). Educating gifted students in the regular classroom: efficacy, attitudes, and differentiation of instruction, Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 822. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/822
• Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171-246). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Campbell&Stanley-1959-Exptl&QuasiExptlDesignsForResearch.pdf
• Carrier, M.,Thomsona, M.,Tugurianband, L. B. & Stevenson, K. T. (2014). Elementary Science Education in Classrooms and Outdoors: Stakeholder views, gender, ethnicity, and testing, International Journal of Science Education 36(13), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.917342
• Ciray Ozkara, F., & Guven, M. (2018). Identification of requirements of primary school teacher candidates for science education. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 6(3), 158-184. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.6c3s8m
• Chang, H. P., Chen, C. C., Guo, G. J., Cheng, Y. J., Lin, C. Y., & Jen, T. H. (2011). The development of a competence scale for learning science: Inquiry and communication. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1213-1233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9256-x.
• Chowdhury, M. A. (2016). Gifted education in science and chemistry: Perspectives and insights into teaching, pedagogies, assessments, and psychosocial skills development. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 4(1), 53-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.2018116581
• Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th edition). London: Routledge.
• Creswell, J. W , Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V. L. and Smith, K. C. (2011). Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences, Bethesda (Maryland): National Institutes of Health. http://www2.jabsom.hawaii.edu/native/docs/tsudocs/Best_Practices_for_Mixed_Methods_Research_Aug2011.pdf
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2014). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (5nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
• Creswell, J. W., Fetters, M. D., Plano Clark, V. L., and Morales, A. (2009). Mixed methods intervention trials. In S. Andrew & L. Halcomb (Eds.), Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences (pp. 161-180). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Google Books.
• Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J. J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, C. D. (2008). Measuring teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS-Self. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 751-766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.010
• DeWitt, J. & Osborne, J. (2007). Supporting teachers on science- focused school trips: Towards an integrated framework of theory and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (6), 685-710. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600802254 Ekici, G. (2012). Akademik öz-yeterlik ölçeği: Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Academic self-efficacy scale: adaptation to Turkish, validity and reliability study]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 43 , 174-185. https://toad.halileksi.net/sites/default/files/pdf/akademik-ozyeterlilik-olcegi-toad.pdf
• Emir, S. & Yaman, Y. (2017). Özel yetenekli öğrenciler için eğitim programı nasıl olmalı? [How to design a program in gifted education?] (Ed. S. Emir). Özel yeteneklilerin eğitiminde program tasarımı [Curriculum design in gifted education]. Ankara.
• Fisman, L. (2005). The effects of local learning on environmental awareness in children: an emprirical investigation. The Journal of Enviromental Education, 36(3), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.36.3.39-50
• Jarvis, T. & Pell, A. (2002). Effect of the challenger experience on elementary children's attitudes to science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 979-1000. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10055
• Johnson, S., & Goree, K. (2005). Teaching gifted students through independent study. In F. Karnes & S. Beans (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted and talented, 379-408. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
• Harlen, W. (2001). Research in primary science education. Journal of Biological Education, 35(2), 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655743
• Harshbarger, D. K. (2015). Exploring preservice teachers' perceptions of differentiated science instruction. ETD collection for University of Nebraska - Lincoln. AAI3716433. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dissertations/AAI3716433
• 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(4), 251-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346927
• Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach all learners, grades. Minneapolis: Free Sipirit Publishing. Google Books.
• Hechter, R. (2011). Changes in preservice elementary teachers’ personal science teaching efficacy and science teaching outcome expectancies: The influence of context. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 187-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9199-7
• Holbrook, J. & Rannikmae, M. (2007).The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy, International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601007549
• Kaplan, S. N. (2012). Theory into practice, Gifted Child Today, 35 (4), 295-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217512455484
• Karademir, E. and Erten, S. (2013). Determining the factors that affect the objectives of pre-service science teachers to perform outdoor science activities. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(4), 270-293. https://ijemst.net/index.php/ijemst/article/view/17/17
• Kutlu Abu, N., Akkanat, Ç. and Gökdere, M. (2017). Teachers’ views about the education of gifted students in regular classrooms, Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 7(2), 87-109. http://www.tuzed.org/publications/cilt7/2/tuzed_2017_7_2_abu&others.pdf
• Kinskey, M. (2018) Using action research to improve science teaching self-efficacy, International Journal of Science Education, 40 (15), 1795-1811, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1502898
• Knaggs, C., & Sondergeld, T. (2015). Science as a learner and as a teacher: Measuring science selfefficacy of elementary preservice teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 115(3), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12110
• Launder, B. (2011). Supporting gifted students in the regular education elementary classroom through differentiated instruction, Master thesis, Bowling Green State University, US.
• Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138-147. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543992.pdf
• Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Mora, C. E., Añorbe-Díaz, B., & González-Marrero, A. (2017). Virtual technologies trends in education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(2), 469-486. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00626a
• Menon, D., & Sadler, T. (2016). Preservice elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy beliefs and science content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 649–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9479-y
• Morentin, M. & Guisasola, J. (2009). Patterns of teachers‘thinking on school visits to a science museum. In M.F. Taşar & G. Çakmakçı (Eds.), Contemporary science education research: international perspectives (pp. 409-411). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi
• Morrell, P. D., & Carroll, J.B. (2003). An extended examination of preservice elementary teachers' science teaching self-efficacy, School Science and Mathematics, 103, 246-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2003.tb18205.x
• National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). 2014. Early Childhood Science Education. Arlington, VA: NSTA. http://static.nsta.org/pdfs/PositionStatement_EarlyChildhood.pdf
• Nielsen, M. E. & Knudson, D. M. (1992). Outdoor Experiences for the Gifted. Historical Documents of the Purdue Cooperative Extension Service. Paper 870. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/agext/870
• Olszewski-Kubilius, P. and Thomson, D. (2015). Talent development as a framework for gifted education, Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514556531
• Oguz, A. (2012). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının akademik öz yeterlik inançları çalışması [Academic self-efficacy beliefs of prospective primary school teachers]. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 2(2), 15-28. http://ajesi.dergi.anadolu.edu.tr/yonetim/icerik/makaleler/14-published.pdf
• Ozkan, O., Tekkaya, C. & Cakiroglu, J. (2002), Fen bilgisi aday öğretmenlerin fen kavramlarını anlama düzeyleri, fen öğretimine yönelik tutum ve öz yeterlik inançları [Science teachers' understanding of science concepts, attitudes towards science teaching and self-efficacy beliefs]. V. Fen ve Matematik Kongresi, Ankara. http://infobank.fedu.metu.edu.tr/ufbmek-5/netscape/b_kitabi/PDF/OgretmenYetistirme/Bildiri/t300.pdf
• Powers, E. A. (2008). The use of independent study as a viable differentiation technique for gifted learners in the regular classroom. Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 57-65.
• Prior, S. (2011). Student voice: What do students who are intellectually gifted say they experience and need in the inclusive classroom? Gifted and Talented International, 26(1-2), 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2011.11673596
• Rapley, T. (2007). The Sage qualitative research kit. Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis. Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208901
• Renzulli, J. S., and Reis, S. M. (2009). A technology-based application of the schoolwide enrichment Model and high-end learning theory. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1203-1223). New York, NY: Springer.
• 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(3) 150-159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901
• Renzulli, J. S. (2005). Applying gifted education pedagogy to total talent development for all students, Theory into Practices, 44(2), 80-89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4402_2
• Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. (2007). A techonology based program that matches enrichment resources with student strenghths, International Journal of Emerging Techonologies in Learning (iJET), 2(3), 1-12. https://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jet/article/view/126
• Reis, S., Westberg, K., Kulkiowich, J., Caillard, F., Hébert, T., Plucker, J., Purcell, J., Rogers, J., & Smist, J. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January: The curriculum compacting study (Research Monograph 93106). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/09/rm93106.pdf
• Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher's science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625-637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740605
• Robinson, A., Shore, B. M. & Enersen, D. (2007), Üstün zekalılar eğitiminde en iyi uygulamalar [Best practices in gifted education]. Nobel Press (Trans. Edit. Oğurlu & Kaya), Ankara.
• Rogers, K. B. (2002). Reforming gifted education. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Eric, ED459570
• Sapon-Shevin, M., Ayres, B.J., & Duncan, J. (1994). Cooperative learning and inclusion. In J.S. Thousand, R.A. Villa, & A.I. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers (pp. 45–58). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
• Savasçi-Açikalin, F. (2013). A study of pre-service teachers’ science teaching efficacy beliefs during the elementary science laboratory course, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 141, 221 – 226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.038
• Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653133
• Stepanek, J. (1999). The inclusive classroom. Meeting the needs of gifted students: Differentiating mathematics and science instruction. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Lab. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED444306.pdf
• Stephens, K. R. & Karnes, F. A. (2016). Curriculum design in gifted education. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
• Smith, M. M. C. (2006). Principles of inclusion. İmplications for able learners. In M.M.C. Smith (Ed.), Including the gifted and talented. Making inclusion work for more gifted and able learners. New York, Oxon:Routledge.
• Silverman, L. K. (1994). The moral sensitivity of gifted children and the evolution of society. Roeper review, 17(2), 110-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199409553636
• Smith, M. M. C. (2006). Including the gifted and talented. Making inclusion work for more gifted and able learners. New York, Oxon:Routledge.
• Stepanek, J. (1999). The inclusive classroom. Meeting the needs of gifted students: Differentiating mathematics and science instruction. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Lab.
• Slater, T.F., Ryan. J.M, & Samson, S.L (1997). The ımpact and dynamics of portfolio assessment and traditional assessment ın college physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 255-271. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199703)34:3<255::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-R
• Swiatek, M. A. & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Elementary and middle school student participation in gifted programs: are gifted students underserved?, Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 118-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700203
• Pajares F. and Schunk D., (2001), The development of academic self-efficacy, in Wigfield A. and Eccles J. (ed.), Development of achievement motivation, San Diego: Academic Press.
• Patton, M. Q., (2014), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods Integrating Theory and Practice (Fourth Edition), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
• Randler, C., Baumgärtner, S., Eisele, H. & Kienzle, W. (2007). Learning at workstations in the zoo: a controlled evaluation of cognitive and affective outcomes. Visitor Studies, 10(2), 205-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645570701585343
• Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enersen, D. L. (2006). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
• Rogers, K. B. (2002). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers. Roeper Review 16(1), 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199309553526
• Rowley, J. L. (2002). Teacher effectiveness in the education of gifted students: A comparison of trained, trainee and untrained teachers of gifted and talented students, The University of New South Wales.
• Senler, B. (2014). Turkish adaptation of the competence scale for learning science: Validity and reliability study. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10(2), 393-407. https://toad.halileksi.net/sites/default/files/pdf/fen-ogrenme-becerisi-olcegi-toad.pdf
• Seidman, I. (2012) Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers college press.
• Sökmen, Y. (2019). The role of self-efficacy in the relationship between the learning environment and student engagement, Educational Studies, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1665986
• Schunk, D. H. (1985). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools, 22 (2), 208-223. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(198504)22:2<208::AID-PITS2310220215>3.0.CO;2-7
• Stephens, K. R. & Karnes, F. A. (2016). Curriculum design in gifted education. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
• Taber, K. S. (2011). Ustun yetenekliler için fen eğitimi [Science education for gifted learners], (Trans. Ed. M. Gokdere), Ankara.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 6-11. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct03/vol61/num02/Deciding-to-Teach-Them-All.aspx
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.
• Tomlinson, C. A, Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., et al. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 119-145. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ787917.pdf
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review, 26(4), 188-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190409554268
• Tsai, J. T. (2006). The identifıcation of the components for an outdoor education curriculum in Taiwan. (The School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation Indiana University.
• Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
• Trauth-Nare, A. (2015). Influence of an intensive, field-based life science course on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for environmental science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 497–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9434-3
• Troxclair, D. (2000). Differentiating instruction for gifted students in regular education social studies classes. Roeper Review, 22, 195–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554033
• Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1.
• Uitto, A., Juuti, K., Lavonen, J. & Meisalo, V. (2006). Students’ interest in biology and their out-of-school experiences. Journal of Biological Eucation, 40(3), 124-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2006.9656029.
• Ustun, U., & Eryilmaz, A. (2014). A research methodology to conduct effective research syntheses: Meta-analysis, Education and Science, 39(174), 1-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3379
• Waite, S. (2009). Teaching and learning outside the classroom: personal values, alternative pedagogies and standards, Education 3–13, 39(1), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270903206141
• Westberg, K., Archambault, F., Dobyns, S. & Slavin, T. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED379846.pdf
• VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306323
• VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000). Theory and research on curriculum development for the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg and R. F. Subotnik (Eds), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed. pp 345-365). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
• VanTassel-Baska, J., & Wood, S. (2010). The integrated curriculum model (ICM). Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.12.006.
• VanTassel-Baska, J. & Stambaugh, T. (2005) Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom, Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 211-217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5
• Reaume, R. (2011). Pre-service teacher perceptions of and experiences with implementation of inquiry based science teaching. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/109.
• Vaivre-Douret, L. (2011). Developmental and cognitive characteristics of high-level potentialities children, International Journal of Pediatrics, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/420297
• Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshadet, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stres and academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 677-698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-4139-z
• Zoldosova, K. & Prokop, P. (2006). Education in the field influences children’s ideas and interest toward science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(3), 304-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9017-3