Introduction
The intent of this literature search was to identify research on the use of technology in the field of K-12 gifted education. The gifted population has unique learning needs that are often overlooked in the traditional education setting. Some legislators and educators consider gifted education to be elitist, when in fact it is simply designed to meet the unique cognitive, social, and emotional needs of a distinct subset of students. Because of the precocity of many gifted students, technology seems well suited to meet the needs of gifted learners. The original intent of the literature search was to find empirical research on online gifted education, but this proved to be too narrow of a field to meet the assignment requirements. The search was expanded to include any resource in peer-reviewed journals that included the terms “gifted,” “education,” and “technology.” In some instances the terms “high-ability” or “AP” were used in place of the term “gifted.” After reading through the literature, I discovered that Periathiruvadi and Rinn (2012) were doing a similar research review and were only able to find 23 empirical studies around technology in gifted education.
A few general themes emerged from the literature review. First, all of the research supports the continued use of technology in gifted education. Gifted students are innately curious and that curiosity is often set-aside in a standards-based regular education classroom. Teachers who embrace technology offer gifted students an outlet to continue to develop their curiosity and make meaning of their world. Second, there is limited empirical research in the field of gifted education and that research is quite diverse since there is no agreed upon or dominant theoretical or conceptual framework to guide the research. While this gives researchers more leeway, it also makes it difficult to apply one set of results to another situation. Thirdly, motivation is a key factor in the success of gifted students in online coursework. There is some research that supports different aspects of course design to increase motivation, which should be useful to course designers. An unexpected finding is that technology in gifted education seems to have its genesis in Australia where the continent's geographic spread of the population created a demand for online gifted education. It is also interesting to note that research on technology in education becomes dated very quickly. This highlights the need to find more efficient research methodologies that allow for a rapid research cycle without compromising the quality of the research. Lastly, with only 23 empirical studies on technology in gifted education from 2000-2012, there is a glaring need for more research. Educators rely on research to inform best practices in the classroom, while legislators should rely on research before enacting new laws that impact classrooms. Without a robust body of evidence to support educators and legislators, classroom decisions may be made in haste.
List of Annotations
Adams, C. M., & Cross, T. L. (1999). Distance learning opportunities for academically gifted students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11(2), 88-96.
Belcastro, F. P. (2002). Electronic technology and its use with rural gifted students. Roeper Review, 25(1), 14-16.
Belcastro, P. (2004). Rural gifted students who are deaf or hard of hearing: How electronic technology can help. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(4), 309-313.
Chen, J., Dai, D. Y., & Zhou, Y. (2013). Enable, enhance, and transform: How technology can improve gifted education. Roeper Review, 35(3), 166-176. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2013.794892
Christopher, M. M., Thomas, J. A., & Tallent-Runnels, M. (2004). Raising the bar: Encouraging high level thinking in online discussion forums. Roeper Review, 26(3), 166-171.
Corry, M., & Stella, J. (2012). Developing a framework for research in online K-12 distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(3), 133-151.
Dixon, F., Cassady, J., Cross, T., & Williams, D. (2005). Effects of technology on critical thinking and essay writing among gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(4), 180-189.
Housand, B.C. & Housand, A. M. (2012). The role of technology in gifted students’ motivation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 706-715. doi:10.1002/pits.21629
Johnston, S., & Barbour, M. (2013). Measuring success: Examining achievement and perceptions of online Advanced Placement students. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(1), 16-28. doi: 10.1080/08923647.2013.755072
Mann, C. (1994). New technologies and gifted education. Roeper Review, 16(3), 172-177.
McKinnon, D. H. & Nolan, C. J. (1999). Distance education for the gifted and talented: An interactive design model. Roeper Review, 21(4), 320-325.
Ng, W., & Nicholas, H. (2007). Technology and independent learning. Roeper Review, 29(3), 1-10.
Ng, W., & Nicholas, H. (2010). A progressive pedagogy for online learning with high-ability secondary school students: A case study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(3), 239-251. doi:10.1177/0016986209355973
Olthouse, J. M., & Miller, M. T. (2012). Teaching talented writers with Web 2.0 tools. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(2), 6-14.
Periathiruvadi, S., & Rinn, A. N. (2012). Technology in gifted education: A review of best practices and empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 153-169.
Shaunessy, E. (2007). Attitudes toward information technology of teachers of the gifted: Implications for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 119-135. doi:10.1177/0016986207299470
Suppes, P., Holland, P. W., Hu, W., & Vu, M. (2013). Effectiveness of an individualized computer-drive online math K-5 course in eight California Title I elementary schools. Educational Assessment, 18, 162-183. doi:10.1080/10627197.2013.814516
Thomson, A. (2010). Beyond the classroom walls: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on how online learning can meet the needs of gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(4), 662-712.
Tirri, K. (2008). Who should teach gifted students? Revista espanola de pedagogia, 66(240), 315-324.
Wallace, P. (2005). Distance education for gifted students: Leveraging technology to expand academic options. High Ability Studies, 16(1), 77-86. doi: 10.1080/13598130500115288
ANNOTATIONS
Shaunessy surveys 418 teachers of gifted students in grades two through six about their attitudes toward information technology and analyzes those survey results to make recommendations about improving access to technology for gifted students. For purposes of this study, gifted students were defined as students with an intellectual quotient of 120 or better on an individually administered normed assessment. All of the teachers surveyed were located in the same southern state, which does have the potential to limit the implications of the study. The survey resulted in a 76% completion rate, which seems high for a voluntary survey. This high response rate seems to minimize the limitation that only technology savvy teachers responded to the survey since it seems unlikely that over three-fourths of all teachers of gifted students would identify of technology savvy. Shaunessey used the Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Information Technology Questionnaire (TAT) as the survey tool. Results of the survey indicated that “teacher training is a significant factor in student use of information technology, and in positively affecting teacher attitudes toward technology integration,” (p. 130) which correlates to previous research in general education settings. The use of TAT in this study allows Shaunessy to identify three variables that have the greatest impact on teachers’ attitudes toward technology: the number of hours of technology training provided by a colleague, professional development in information technology, and age. Many districts that implement information technology offer formal professional development on the technology, but according to Shaunessy, it takes over 40 hours of traditional professional development to improve teachers’ attitudes toward implementing information technology. Contrast this to the finding that as little as one to three hours of technology assistance from a colleague can improve teachers’ attitudes toward informational technology. This has major implications for the way in which districts design and deliver professional development for technology integration. A potential limitation of this finding is that the teachers of the gifted who responded to the survey had a more favorable attitude toward information technology than had previously been shown by TAT surveys of general education teachers.
Back to list
Ten high-ability (gifted), 14-year-old students who attended a face-to-face summer program in either Malaysia or Australia were studied as they completed an optional online extension course. There were originally 62 students who took part in the summer program. Of those 62 students, 18 were identified as gifted or high-ability by teachers and subsequently nominated to participate in the online extension course after they left the camp. Of the 10 students who participated in the online course, seven attended the camp in Malaysia and three attended the camp in Australia. This meant that all students had no personal familiarity with at least three peers in the online course. The goal of the study was to ascertain the value of a progressive pedagogical activity on learning of high-ability students in an online environment. Students completed three primary tasks in the online course: (a) study, evaluate, and discuss ethics, (b) debate the merits of nuclear versus solar energy (which was an extension of the content in the summer camp), and (c) produce an artifact on “Global warming - Where do we go from here?” (p.242). Only seven of the students carried the online course through the final project, which does have its own implications. As students went through the three learning tasks, the course utilized a progressive pedagogy by going from structured whole group activities to semi-structured asynchronous online debate to a completely independent final product. As students progressed through the online course, motivation to log in seemed to wane, but this makes sense since the final stage of the course was highly personal. However, there was a direct relationship between the three students who did not complete the project and the number of times that they accessed the course from the onset, meaning these students had the fewest logins from the onset. However, there was no relationship that could be drawn between the number of times the other seven students accessed the course at the onset and the quality of their final product. This led to the conclusion that the motivation of the student to complete the learning activities has a greater effect on successful completion than the number of times a student accesses the course. This is a potentially important finding for course designers of online courses for gifted students. One student echoed this finding in his course evaluation by stating “a very important aspect in engaging a young mind’s attention is to make things an enjoyable and memorable experience” (p. 247).
Thomson uses surveys (quantitative), synchronous interviews and open-ended survey questions (qualitative) to gain a better understanding of how online education can meet the needs of gifted students. Data was collected and analyzed from both the teacher and the student perspective. All respondents were connected to the same midwestern university that offered online courses for gifted students. Survey respondents included 28 of the eligible 44 instructors (64%) teaching at least one online course and 65 of the eligible 900 students (7%) in grades three through 12 taking at least one online course. The extremely low response rate among students could significantly slant the results. Another limitation of the study is the interview selection process. Thomson believed that teachers and students with the most online experience would be better suited to answer the interview questions and purposefully selected teachers who were deemed to be highly effective based on end-of-course surveys (n=9) and students (n=6) who had successfully completed at least one online course from the same institution. While Thomson believes that this narrow focus provides more “experienced” feedback, it could also serve to quiet voices from teachers and students with less favorable perceptions of online learning. Additionally, teacher interviewees were told that they did not have to respond to all of the interview questions and instead could focus their responses to a few questions that they were more interested in answering. Despite the limitations of the study, there are some interesting findings. First, student-centered learning opportunities were more likely to improve student motivation. This is particularly interesting considering the work of Ny and Nicholas (2010) who found that student motivation was an indicator of success in online courses for high-ability students. Teachers and students both reported that they felt online courses had the power to be more personal that traditional face-to-face instruction since asynchronous communication tools allowed teachers to provide specific feedback to individual students instead of feeling compelled to address the class as a whole. The most interesting observation was the recognition that online format offers specific advantages over traditional instruction and that designers should embrace the advantages of online course design rather than trying to build online courses that mimic face-to-face instruction.
The need for empirical research in the field of K-12 online learning is growing as the field grows. The largest body of research in online learning is focused on adult learners and while some of that research can be extrapolated to K-12, Corry and Stella posit that the field of K-12 online learning would benefit significantly from a dedicated framework for empirical research. They propose the Framework for Research in Online K-12 Distance Education to help establish a common lexicon for the field, highlight instances where existing empirical research in adult online education can be extrapolated to K-12 or should be expanded to include K-12, and focus the future “design and analysis of online distance education and identifying areas of opportunity” (p.136). The Framework for Research in Online K-12 Distance Education focuses on nine dimensions: learners, teachers, materials, delivery, methodology, evaluation, administration, international, and history. Each dimension is considered of equal importance in relation to the others. For each dimension, Corry and Stella define the lexicon. identify key factors or questions that need to be considered, summarize the existing research, and identify future research needs. Besides their desire to unify the research field, Corry and Stella are concerned that most existing findings in K-12 online learning are based on the perceptions of people involved in the field (teachers, students, administrators, etc…) and not actually on robust research. By providing a framework for future research they hope to improve the focus and subsequently quality of K-12 online research. After all, quality research helps to inform best practices and hopefully future legislation that could impact the field. While Corry and Stella offer sound arguments for proposing their framework, they offer little empirical and theoretical evidence to support their framework as the quintessential framework for future research in K-12 online education.
Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Talented Youth (CTY) has been offering distance education for gifted youth since 1984. Early courses were funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities and focused on writing. CTY courses are designed to offer supplemental and enrichment opportunities for gifted students rather than replace a full curriculum. CTY now offers more than 45 online courses that are taken by over 6,000 students from 50 countries each year. Over two-thirds of CTY students re-enroll after taking their first CTY course and 90% of all students respond that they are satisfied with their distance learning experience, which leads Wallace to conclude that CTY has a formula for successful online courses for gifted students. Using this premise, Wallace identifies aspects of successful online courses for gifted students that other schools and providers should adopt. The first success factor is the role of the instructor. CTY stresses the one-to-one relationship between the student and teacher. In fact, in many cases the teacher acts as a mentor for the student, which can lead to higher motivation and has been shown as a success factor in online education for gifted students. Another success factor for CTY courses in the rigor of the academic content and the pacing. Mathematics and computer science courses are individually paced which fosters more one-to-one interaction between the teacher and student. Humanities courses are less self-paced but the nature of the course requires significant personal feedback from the teacher to the student. CTY also shuns newer technology innovations and instead relies on technology that it knows will work, thus limiting the potential for technology issues to impact the online experience for students. CTY also offers support services for all students including community forums, counseling services, and placement and technical support. Lastly, CTY recognizes the unique advantages of online learning and does not attempt to recreate face-to-face courses in the online environment, a strategy that is supported by Thomson’s research (2010). Institutions and providers that are seeking to create additional online learning opportunities for gifted students can learn valuable lessons on successful course design by studying the CTY model.
McKinnon, D. H., & Nolan, C. J. (1999). Distance education for the gifted and talented: An interactive design model. Roeper Review, 21(4), 320-325.
The New South Wales Board of Studies designed three Distinction Courses for gifted high school seniors. These students are allowed under Australian law to enroll in courses at their local college, although geographic dispersity in Australia makes that impossible for many gifted students. In 1994, the New South Wales Board of Studies decided meet the demand for advanced courses by offering what were essentially correspondence courses, with the exception of one course. The Cosmology Distinction Course was designed using an interactive design model and utilized a comprehensive set of communication tools which included a course website and Internet activities. The interactive design model placed the student at the center of a learning triangle with course material and assessment, residential programs, and significant others at the vertices of the triangle. The full-year course also required two brief residential experiences for all students, effectively making it a precursor to what is called blended learning today. The course took five distinct focuses during different phases for the learners: (1) administrative focus. (2) social interaction focus, (3) content specific focus, (4) project focus, and (5) presentation focus. During the residential periods communication was encouraged and fostered among peers and the course coordinator to build a strong sense of community that would foster success throughout the course. While each element of the interactive design model was intentionally included to maintain student interest in the course, the New South Wales Board of Studies believed that “sustained student use of the communication system” (p.324) was the key component to student success. This same position was espoused by the students in their end of course feedback. The focus on sustained communication created a learning community that enabled the gifted students to have access to experts in the field of cosmology and conversations with their intellectual peers to expand their thinking. While this study is clearly dated in the terms of research in online learning, the key findings that an interactive design model and communication play a central role in student success in online education is supported by more contemporary research.
Adams and Cross describe the pros and cons of three early distance learning programs for gifted students. The three programs highlighted are the A. Linwood Holton Governor’s School in West Virginia, Regional Electronic Magnet School Re: Math and Science in Massachusetts, and the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humanities. While the A. Linwood Holton Governor’s School has offices in southwest West Virginia, there is no physical school location. Instead gifted students across the state take courses remotely via two-way video in their home school. Courses are all interdisciplinary and taught in 90-minute blocks by the full-time teachers at the Governor’s School. The Regional Electronic Magnet School Re: Math and Science (REMS) was designed to serve four gifted high school juniors in each of 15 high schools across the state. Again, students remained in their home schools and received their education using video- and Internet-based models. REMS courses focused on problem-solving, higher order and logical thinking skills. The Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humanities was the only program to offer a residential program in addition to distance learning opportunities. The residential program was located on the campus of Ball State University and open to gifted high school juniors and seniors across the state. The Academy also offered 11 distance learning courses that were taken by students at over 150 different locations. Additionally, they began offering virtual field trips that were wildly popular inside and outside of Indiana. One virtual field trip on the holocaust had over 3.8 million U.S. students actively participate. Each of these three unique programs had several common goals: (1) provide opportunities for gifted students to interact with and learn alongside their academic peers, (2) offer unique classes that would not normally be available to gifted students due to low demand in schools, and (3) provide professional development and outreach opportunities to teachers across their state. All three schools felt as though they were successful in their missions and helped to expand opportunities for gifted students. The potential drawbacks that were cited with distance learning opportunities were technical glitches and teachers who were struggling to learn to teach using technology. While these schools were early adopters of online distance education for gifted students, the cons that they found in 1999 are still prevalent today.
Stanford University’s Education Program for Gifted Youth’s (EPGY) technology-based mathematics curriculum was tested in eight K-5 Title I schools to see if students who accessed the curriculum for twenty minutes a day, five days a week, showed any statistical improvement in their California Standard Math Test (CST) scores at the end of the year. While EPGY curriculum is currently designed for gifted students, its precursor is a similar curriculum that was designed for disadvantaged students. For this study, the optional rigorous exercises were removed to make the content more accessible to Title I students. Students in each school were ranked on prior assessment scores and placed in pairs. One member of each pair was placed in the control group and the second in the experimental group. This method of assignment created two groups of students with nearly identical pre-assessment scores, thus eliminating a potential bias. All students received math instruction from their teacher. The experimental group spent 20 minutes each day on EPGY computer-based curriculum under the supervision of their teacher and an EPGY staff member while students in the control group spent that 20 minutes in their classroom using worksheets and traditional texts to practice their math skills. The overall findings showed little significant difference between the two groups at the end of the year until the findings were scrutinized further. Students who were in the top half of the control group based on the number of correct responses in the EPGY curriculum showed significant growth over other students, which led to the conclusion that motivated students received the most benefit from the EPGY computer-based curriculum. The researchers were pleased with these findings and suggest that technology can play a role in improving student achievement; future research should be designed to isolate student motivation factors. Based on analysis of the results, the conclusion was reached that technology-based curriculum has three distinct advantages for students over traditional curriculum: (1) students receive immediate feedback on progress, (2) the program can provide concrete support as soon as the student gets an answer incorrect, and (3) progress for each student is individualized. In order for computer-based instructional models to work, teachers must assume new roles like troubleshooter, manager, and motivator.
Prior research has shown that students who use word processors for writing often check their spelling more frequently and constantly revise their writing. Researchers at a residential program for gifted juniors and seniors in the midwest wanted to determine if using computers in the writing process could have any impact on the critical thinking skills displayed in student essays and whether gender played any role in any effect. Students were required to handwrite an essay at the onset of their junior year. During the fall of their senior year the students were required to write a second essay, but half of the students of each gender were asked to compose their essay using a computer. Both essays were in response to a prompt based on the same essay by Katherine Anne Porter. Essays were evaluated for critical thinking by two raters, both administrators at the school, who received four trainings using the Dixon rubric, which is designed to measure aspects of critical thinking. The rubric was adapted from the AP English Composition rubric, which is familiar to most teachers of gifted secondary students. Of the 99 students in the study, only 39 were male. The researchers used Pillai’s Trace to interpret the MANOVA to attempt to balance out the unequal sample sizes. Two conclusions were reached: (1) gifted boys composed better essays when they were able to compose on the computer and (2) the Dixon essay for coding essays was a useful instrument to reveal aspects of critical thinking in essay writing. Boys in the study who used the computer to compose their essays increased their word counts by 83% and their rubric scores from 3.1 to 4.1 over the handwritten group. Girls in the study showed no statistically significant difference between the two writing modalities. While the results are promising, more research is needed before an definitive statement can be made about the ability of word processing software to improve critical thinking in essay writing.
Schools in rural regions often suffer from a variety of issues including low funding for specialized curriculum and teachers, limited populations of students with unique learning needs, geographic barriers that may be compounded by seasonal issues such as harsh winters or annual flooding, and limited technology infrastructure. These issues are especially troublesome for gifted rural students where they may be only one of a handful of students requiring advanced curriculum and teachers with specialized training to access a free and appropriate education. Technology has the potential to alleviate some of the issues that rural gifted students face. Rural gifted education has long been recognized as an issue in Australia where population density dramatically varies across the country. Because of this, Australia is often recognized as an early leader in using technology to provide appropriate educational options for gifted students. The Education of Western Australia has determined that technology can be adequately used to “give students the opportunity to interpret, discuss, and evaluate concepts, thereby leading to higher order thinking skills” (p.15). Superhighway Teams Across Rural Schools in Australia determined that communications networks can be used to help rural gifted students develop “increased problem-solving ability and higher levels of motivation and task involvement” (p.15). Both of these results are promising and offer support for the increased use of technology for rural gifted education in the U.S. While there are certainly pockets of evidence in the U.S. to support electronic communication media in U.S. gifted education, it is more the exception than the norm. Belcastro uses the early findings from Australia to call on state and federal legislators to mandate and fund the consolidation of rural schools districts to ensure that they have a critical mass of students and resources to appropriately educate all students. In the meantime, Belacastro advocates for the advancement of technology to reach rural gifted students.
There are several frameworks for evaluating technology in the general education setting, including the work of Bruce and Levin (1997), Mishra and Koehler (2006), and Twining (2002). Additionally, several researchers like Siegle (2005). Pyryt (2009), and Ng and Nicholas (2007) have taken this approach further by developing unique frameworks to evaluate technology specifically in the realm of gifted education. The concern is that each of these frameworks suffers from at least one of the following problems: (1) a limited focus on one aspect of technology rather than a comprehensive framework, (2) dimensions of the framework are discrete and do not show the natural interconnectedness that occurs among various dimensions, and/or (3) the framework does not transfer well from the general education setting to populations of gifted students. Therefore, the authors propose a new theoretical model to address the perceived shortcomings of the existing models and refine future research on using technology in gifted education. Their framework, the enable, enhance, and transform framework, seeks to encourage research and evidence in three main areas: (1) instances where technology enables the expansion of gifted education by increasing its efficiency and capacity, (2) instances where technology enhances the quality of gifted education and subsequently the learning outcomes of gifted students, and (3) opportunities for technology to transform gifted education by opening new opportunities for gifted students to explore personalized learning experiences and talent development. The enable, enhance, and transform framework is broad enough to encompass comprehensive research on technology in gifted education, but also focused enough to ensure that research is aimed at addressing the three main goals for technology in gifted education. Technology in education, and specifically gifted education, is becoming ubiquitous. It would be beneficial for the field to agree on a dominant framework for future research. As the pace of technology integrations accelerates, it becomes important to thoughtfully design and execute empirical research in the field so that it is timely enough to be used to inform decision makers, both in schools and at the legislative level.
Florida Virtual School (FLVS) opened in 1997 as one of the first online providers of Advanced Placement (AP) courses. In 2010, FLVS began requiring all students taking AP courses to take the College Board AP exam. Additionally, unlike many other online AP course providers, FLVS allows open access to their AP courses for Florida students. Using this information, Johnson and Barbour designed a study to compare AP scores for FLVS students to scores on the same exams by other Florida students and the national average over three years. Scores were analyzed in 2010, 2011, and 2012 and in each year FLVS students had a higher percentage of qualifying scores (three or better on most exams) on the AP exams than other Florida students, but slightly less than the national average. In fact, the AP scores of FLVS students were 6%, 10% and finally 15% higher that other Florida students over the three years. This leads to the conclusion that FLVS AP courses are at least as good as in-state brick-and-mortar schools at preparing Florida students for AP exams. While the FLVS students did not score as high as the national average, it should be noted that there is no national policy requiring all AP students to take AP exams. This leads to the significant possibility that on the national level, students who felt most confident at passing AP exams were more likely to pay for and take the assessment, thus artificially increasing the national average. Johnson and Barbour were also interested in student perceptions of FLVS online AP courses compared to their face-to-face AP courses. Therefore, they conducted follow-up surveys and interviews with FLVS students who had also taken traditional AP courses. Of those students surveyed, 71% responded that the FLVS AP course was the same or better quality as their previous AP courses. However, these same students reported that while they felt the FLVS AP courses were better at preparing them for the AP exams, they did miss the face-to-face discussions with classmates and the teacher. This is valuable information to online course designers who continually seek to improve online course design.
Some of the first students to use computers in the classroom were gifted students. This happened inadvertently in a time when classrooms would often have only one computer. Gifted students would often finish their work early and therefore have the option of exploring the computer. Early adopters of computers in the classroom identified three main roles the computer filled: tutor, tool, tutee (Taylor, 1980). While all three roles have the potential to add value to classrooms, for gifted students the goal is to have the computer fill the role of tutee as often is possible. However, this is often difficult as teachers are learning to understand and integrate technology in their classrooms. Teachers often go through a five-stage process when adding technology to their courses: (1) entry, (2) adoption, (3) adaptation, (4) appropriation, and (5) invention. Gifted students “require a broad range of subject matter as well as accelerated learning activities which involve complex thinking and the synthesis of information” (p. 172). Therefore, it is important to provided resources and support to teachers as they integrate technology in gifted classrooms so that they are able to move through the five-stage process and effectively as possible. Constructivism has been a popular learning theory in gifted education. With this in mind, Mann suggests that course designers use technology to build courses for gifted students that develop “shells which allow students to construct meaning for themselves” (p. 173). Individualized learning software and collaboration were identified as some of the benefits of technology for gifted students. Technology does have the potential to accelerate learning and collaborative opportunities for gifted students, but limited research has been conducted to help isolate best practices. This journal submission is over ten years old; it is interesting to note the changes in terminology that have happened over that time.
Some studies have shown that online discussion forums can allow for more thoughtful responses and active participation among classmates than face-to-face discussions. Still other research has shown that the disjointed nature of online discussions can inhibit participation among classmates. The authors attempt to determine what level of thinking is most commonly employed in online graduate discussions and whether the level of those discussions improves over the course of the semester. Ten graduate students in gifted education had their online discussion posts evaluated against a rubric designed to measure low, medium, and high thinking skills at the end of a semester-long course on the social and emotional needs of gifted students. Overall, the results fell in the medium range at the end of the course. Four of the students typically responded at the medium or high level and three of the students typically responded at the low level. This implies that overall, the students responses would be graphically illustrated as a bell curve. The study also evaluated whether or not the level of prompts and responses changed over the duration of the course. Since the level of the prompts remained flat throughout the course, there was no discernable difference noted as to the level of the responses as the course progressed. Additionally, the professor did not contribute to the online forums. Having an active voice from the professor could have helped to guide and extend the thinking and responses. The researchers believe that the results of this study apply to online discussion forums for gifted students in the K-12 setting, but this is an erroneous conclusion. No information was given to confirm or deny whether or not the participants in this study were gifted themselves, rather they were simply teachers who were studying for an endorsement or advanced degree in gifted education. In K-12 gifted education online courses it stands to reason that all students will be gifted and thus may have more diverse thinking patterns than those displayed by adults studying about gifted education.
Forty percent of U.S. students attend schools that are classified as rural. These schools and students face unique challenges that are not prevalent in suburban and urban schools. In 2000, over 68% of colleges and universities offered some form of online learning, making online learning a format that is no longer considered a fringe pedagogy. Using technology and online resources can provide a boon to rural students who are deaf or hard of hearing. “The purpose of electronic technology is not to be an alternative to a high-quality teacher and classroom; the intent is to be an alternative to nothing, which is what many rural gifted students who are deaf or hard of hearing are getting right now” (p.310). Several technologies, like the iCommunictor, exist that can take the spoken word and translate it to written text or sign language. The Jones e-global library is a fully online virtual library can offer resources to rural students who are deaf or hard of hearing that they can then translate using tools like iCommunictor. Online websites with lessons for gifted students can be accessed by rural teachers with limited specialty training and adapted to meet the needs of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Electronic communication tools open a new world of possibilities for rural gifted students who are deaf or hard of hearing. The challenge is making schools, administrators, teachers, parents, and students aware of the resources and funding options that are available to meet the needs of this special population of students. While rural gifted students who are deaf or hard of hearing undoubtedly comprise a very small minority of K-12 students, further research is needed to show how the electronic communication tools can improve learning outcomes for this population of learners.
Teaching talented writers can be a struggle for many teachers in the general education classroom, since the majority of students may not be natural writers and content standards are designed to challenge struggling writers. The question becomes how teachers educate and challenge students who have already developed exceptional writing talent. These students display four unique characteristics: (1) they tend to seek out their intellectual peers and shun their same age peers, (2) they display an intellectual precocity with language, (3) they are often intrinsically motivated to write, and (4) they prefer to write in new and varied formats. Often these students have limited experience with the revision process because their first attempt is usually good enough to merit an “A” based on the grade level standards. One solution to meeting the needs of high ability learners is by getting them involved in an online learning community. These communities are characterized by allowing gifted students the opportunity to explore their writing with a supportive intellectual peer group. In a 2007 survey of 935 U.S. teens, it was found that 64% of those teens “engaged in some form of content creation” (p.8). This finding supports the “pretest and substitute” (p.13) pedagogy suggested by Olthouse and Miller to meet the needs of high ability writers. Pretest and substitute encourages teachers to pretest high ability writers on the appropriate grade level standards and, once those standards are met, to substitute an appropriate Web 2.0 tool in place of the remaining content in the unit. The key issue is finding the appropriate online writing resource. Just because students display high writing ability does not mean that they are developmentally ready for mature content on some writing communities. Similarly, just because a high ability writer is young does not mean that they will be challenged by writing communities that use sophomoric animations and sounds. The role of the teacher is to balance the appropriateness of available online resources with the specific learning needs of high ability writers, which are often well beyond the standards that they are charged with teaching.
Early research in gifted education categorized gifted students as having distinct advantages over their non-gifted peers. More recent research has corrected this misconception and acknowledges that gifted students are at-risk of underachieving, just like other special populations of students. Ng and Nicholas posit that gifted students are motivated to learn using technology and therefore propose a framework for creating autonomous, collaborative online learning spaces for gifted students. The key here is that motivation has been shown to be a key factor to success in online learning platforms. Ng and Nicholas build on the work of Anderson (2004) who found four distinct capacities for online learning; (1) time and place flexibility in learning, (2) exploding amount of content available on the Internet, (3) vast array of available media formats, and (4) communication rich formats with distinct advantages for synchronous and asynchronous communication tools. Research supports grouping gifted students; creating online platforms for them seems like a natural fit. Building on the work of Anderson (2004), Mayes (1995), and Garrison (2000), Ng and Nicholas propose a framework where a socially-immersed learning paradigm is the central feature for online gifted education. The premise is that a socially-immersed focus will help to develop a learning community where interactions with peers and teachers help learners to engage and construct meaning. Their framework weaves cognitive, social, and teaching presences into a cohesive framework for designing online courses that are motivating to gifted learners. Because not all schools or communities have a “critical mass” of gifted students, social learning is often difficult in traditional secondary schools. Building online learning communities that emphasize a social immersion platform could be a solution to this issue facing schools. While Ng and Nicholas provide ample research to support the development and design of their framework, there is no empirical research presented to support the adoption of the framework. This is a research need that should be addressed.
While technology continues to infiltrate the gifted education field, there is limited empirical research to help define best practices. Periathiruvadi and Rinn reviewed all existing empirical research and descriptive articles on technology in gifted education. After a thorough review that involved academic searches on ERIC, Education Research Complete, Academic Research Complete and PsychArticles, they were able to identify 24 peer-reviewed empirical studies and 159 descriptive articles from 2000-2012 specifically related to the field. The research took on six distinct themes: (1) learning and development, (2) programming, (3) learning environments, (4) assessments, (5) curriculum and instruction planning, and (6) professional development. For each of the 24 studies, Periathiruvadi and Rinn identify the authors, participants, methodology, focus, and some of the key findings. The learning and development research supports that gifted students enjoy learning on technology since it is something that they already use in their daily lives. Technology also offers communication tools that are showing promise in meeting the social and emotional needs of gifted students. Technology has been shown to be an effective assessment tool in three areas: (1) identification of gifted students, (2) ongoing assessments of students learning, and (3) assessment to measure effectiveness of gifted programming. Technology has also been shown to increase open ended inquiry-based learning for gifted students. Research supports the use of technology in opening options for gifted programming like acceleration, enrichment, and independent study courses. Research also shows that pre-service and practicing gifted teachers need more training and professional development in using technology with gifted students. This research review highlights the glaring need of more empirical research on technology in gifted education. The varying methodologies and foci of the existing research also supports the need for a comprehensive framework for future research in the field.
Housand, B. C., & Housand, A. M. (2012). The role of technology in gifted students’ motivation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 706-715. doi:10.1002/pits.21629
Despite the fact that there is a limited amount of empirical research to support the use of technology in gifted education, it is nearly impossible not to hear stories of gifted students using and learning with technology. The key to successful digital learning experiences for gifted students is their motivation (Ng & Nicholas 2010). Research has shown that technology is not necessarily a motivator, but Ng and Nicholas note “a relationship seems to exist between the opportunities that technology presents and motivation for gifted students” (p. 706). Gifted students are motivated by the “autonomy, challenge, just-in-time knowledge, creativity and recognition” (p.707) that technology is able to provide for them. Student choice has been shown to increase student intrinsic motivation. Online platforms like the Boise State University 3D game lab offer students the opportunity to make choices and see where those choices lead. Gifted students have also shown a higher level of confidence when completing computer-based tasks than students who were identified as low-achievers. This confidence is attributed to their motivation to achieve when given autonomy over parts of their learning. Providing gifted students with the appropriate level of challenge is also a primary determinant in their motivation. That challenge, when combined with the natural curiosity of gifted students creates a need for deeper exploration. Once the curiosity “trigger” is pulled, gifted students have a compelling need to learn more and assimilate that knowledge into their existing schema. Neglecting to allow this process to occur in real-time can stifle curiosity and lead to underachievement. Without access to technology, it is virtually impossible for a general education teacher to ask questions that will stimulate the gifted mind or answer every question that a curious gifted student will pose. Gifted students are often not able to connect with intellectual peers in their regular classrooms and may be recognized for producing work that is not at their ability level. Fostering online learning communities for gifted students to interact with their intellectual peers where they can be recognized for real achievements improves their social and emotional development. Since technology seems to be a natural fit based on existing research about the needs of gifted learners, it is recommended that future research on technology in education include studies focused on gifted learners.
Earlier (1960’s -1980’s) research into good teachers identified good teachers as the ones whose students had the best achievement results. More recent research focuses on pedagogical reasons to categorize a teacher as “good.” Empirical research has recently defined expert teachers as the ones who are more student-oriented and capable of reflective practice (Berliner, 1988). Research has shown that there are three major patterns that can be plotted to graphically represent teacher effectiveness: (1) friendliness and empathy, (2) organization and systematic skills, and (3) creativity and imagination (Ryans, 1960). Mason (1991) identified three roles that teachers take on in online learning platforms and discussions: (1) organizational, (2) social, and (3) intellectual. Mason’s three roles show a remarkable similarity to the three patterns identified by Ryans long before the advent of online education. Tirri posits that “excellence in online teaching is fundamentally no different from excellence in other forms of teaching” (p.321) since it is the pedagogical qualities that are most important to excellent teachers. Teachers who truly care about their students as individuals are the ones who will emerge as excellent teachers, regardless of the delivery platform. Empirical studies have shown that personal and social qualities outweigh the intellectual qualities in effective teachers for gifted students. This finding supports the use of technology in gifted education where the teacher is able to create or use digital resources to serve as the knowledge base.
References Cited in Annotations
Anderson, T. (2004). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson, & F. Elloumi, F. (Eds.) Theory and Practice of Online Learning (pp.33-60). Alberta, Canada: Athabasca University Press.
Berliner, D. C. (1988). Implications of studies on expertise in pedagogy for teacher education and evaluation. New Directors for Teacher Assessment. Proceedings from the 1988 Educational Testing Services International Conference, Princeton, NJ, Educational Testing Service.
Bruce, B. C., & Levin, J. A. (1997). Educational technology: Media for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 79-102.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87-105.
Mason, R. (1991). Moderating educational computer conferencing. DEOSNEWS 1(19). Retrieved from http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deosnews/deosarchives.asp
Mayes, J. T. (1995). Learning technology and groundhog day. In W. Strang, V. Simpson, & D. Slater (Eds.) Hypermedia at work: Practice and theory in higher education. Canterbury, England. University of Kent Press.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.
Pyryt, M. C. (2009). Recent developments in technology: Implications for gifted education. In Savinina, L.V. (Ed.), International handbook of giftedness (pp. 1173-1180). New York, NY: Springer.
Ryans, D. (1960). Characteristics of teachers. Washington, D.C.: American Council of Education.
Siegel, D. (2005). Six uses of the Internet to develop students’ gifts and talents. Gifted Child Today, 32 (2), 14-19.
Taylor, R. P. (Ed). (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, and tutee. New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press.
Twining, P. (2002). Conceptualising computer use in education: Introducing the Computer Practice Framework (CPF). British Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 95-110.
Permission Statement
Reprinted with permission of the author.
This article is provided as a service of the Davidson Institute for Talent Development, a 501(c)3 nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted young people 18 and under. To learn more about the Davidson Institute’s programs, please visit www.DavidsonGifted.org.
The appearance of any information in the Davidson Institute's Database does not imply an endorsement by, or any affiliation with, the Davidson Institute. All information presented is for informational purposes only and is solely the opinion of and the responsibility of the author. Although reasonable effort is made to present accurate information, the Davidson Institute makes no guarantees of any kind, including as to accuracy or completeness. Use of such information is at the sole risk of the reader.