Gifted Education Research 1994–2003: A Disconnect Between Priorities and Practice

2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 427-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L. Jolly ◽  
Todd Kettler

This research project employs a historical methodology to analyze and characterize the growth of the knowledge base in gifted education following the U.S. Department of Education's (1993) report, National Excellence: A Case for Developing America's Talent. Topical priorities and descriptors of inquiry are compared against the recommendations of the National Excellence report. During the 10-year period from 1994 to 2003, a disconnect is evidenced between recommendations and actual research priorities and practices.

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corina R. Kaul ◽  
Brenda K. Davis

In 2015, the U.S. Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) that included provisions to support gifted and talented learners. The U.S. Department of Education’s Consolidated State Plan template only required states to directly address the inclusion of gifted education under Title II, Part A: Supporting Effective Instruction (Section 2101(d)(2)(J)). We examined the inclusion of gifted education in the Title II section of all 52 submitted ESSA plans. Of the approved plans, 16 states explicitly addressed how educators would be supported in identifying and providing gifted learners with effective instruction, and 15 states generally described educator support to meet the needs of multiple groups of students (including gifted). Three of the approved state plans did not mention support for gifted education in their Title II responses. Gifted education stakeholders must be familiar with their state’s plan and understand how Title II can fund professional development for gifted education.


1989 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-124
Author(s):  
Klaus K. Urban

This article summarizes the results of a questionnaire which sought to elicit some consensus on significant research and researchers in Gifted Education to date and recommended research priorities for the future.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  

Knowledge management is vital to successfully executing research and development programs within the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC). Experimental knowledge management initiatives over the years led to discoveries about the best ways to store and access ERDC’s vast knowledge base. This document highlights several of the effective knowledge management tools that evolved from these discoveries, helping you to find and share knowledge!


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Burton ◽  
Mark Brundrett ◽  
Marion Jones

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L. Jolly ◽  
Angela Chessman

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. mr3
Author(s):  
Daniel L. Reinholz ◽  
Tessa C. Andrews

There has been a recent push for greater collaboration across the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields in discipline-based education research (DBER). The DBER fields are unique in that they require a deep understanding of both disciplinary content and educational research. DBER scholars are generally trained and hold professional positions in discipline-specific departments. The professional societies with which DBER scholars are most closely aligned are also often discipline specific. This frequently results in DBER researchers working in silos. At the same time, there are many cross-cutting issues across DBER research in higher education, and DBER researchers across disciplines can benefit greatly from cross-disciplinary collaborations. This report describes the Breaking Down Silos working meeting, which was a short, focused meeting intentionally designed to foster such collaborations. The focus of Breaking Down Silos was institutional transformation in STEM education, but we describe the ways the overall meeting design and structure could be a useful model for fostering cross-­disciplinary collaborations around other research priorities of the DBER community. We describe our approach to meeting recruitment, premeeting work, and inclusive meeting design. We also highlight early outcomes from our perspective and the perspectives of the meeting participants.


Land ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 119 ◽  
Author(s):  
William L. Hargrove ◽  
Josiah M. Heyman

Various sectors of stakeholders (urban, agricultural, policymakers, etc.) are frequently engaged in participatory research projects aimed at improving water resources’ sustainability. However, a process for comprehensive and integrative identification, classification, and engagement of all types of water stakeholders for a region or river basin, especially in a transboundary context, is missing for water resources research projects. Our objective was to develop a systematic approach to identifying and classifying water stakeholders, and engage them in a discussion of water futures, as a foundation for a participatory modeling research project to address the wicked water resource problems of the Middle Rio Grande basin on the U.S./Mexico border. This part of the Rio Grande basin can be characterized as having limited and dwindling supplies of water, increasing demands for water from multiple sectors, and a segmented governance system spanning two U.S. states and two countries. These challenges are being exacerbated by climate change; a transitioning agriculture to more water demanding, high value crops; urbanization; and growing demand for environmental services. Moving forward, a core question for this region is how can water be managed so that the three competing sectors—agricultural, urban, and environmental—can realize a sustainable future in this challenged water system? We identified the major water-using sectors who represent competing demands as including agricultural, municipal, self-supplied industrial users, environmental, and a sector we labeled “social justice”, comprised of individuals who lack access to potable water, or who represent groups who advocate for access to water. We included stakeholders from both the U.S. and Mexico, which is seldom done, who share transboundary water resources in the region. We hosted a series of stakeholder dialogues and obtained results that identified and described their vision for the future of water; challenges to be overcome; and important research questions that could be addressed using participatory modeling approaches. Four broad themes common to multiple sectors emerged: (1) quantity, drought, and scarcity; (2) quality/salinization; (3) urbanization; and (4) conservation and sustainability. Each sector expressed distinctive views regarding the future of water. Agricultural stakeholders, in particular, had strong feelings of ownership of water rights as part of land ownership and a concomitant sense of threat to those water rights emanating from dwindling supplies and competing demands. The contribution of this work is a methodology for identifying, classifying, and engaging all types of stakeholders in the context of a research project, enabling us to compare and contrast views of different types of stakeholders. Heretofore, this has been accomplished in “bits and pieces”, but never comprehensively and holistically.


Leonardo ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (5) ◽  
pp. 486-492
Author(s):  
Rebecca Dalvesco

Since the end of World War II, the U.S. government has embraced the rhetoric of the peaceful use of the atom. Following the government’s lead, architect-designer-philosopher Richard Buckminster Fuller espoused similar ideas. Like U.S. President Lyndon Johnson and other “atoms for peace” enthusiasts, Fuller thought that the revolution then occurring in architecture was an outgrowth of the peaceful atom. And, like Johnson, Fuller believed that technology based on the atom did not just favor Americans but could be applied for the benefit of all humanity. Fuller thought atomic technology could help extend humankind’s knowledge base and thus be applied to develop better architecture. This article explains how Fuller, like politicians of the time, believed that the potential for fearful products of destruction—of war and its weaponry—could be applied for peacetime applications, particularly when designing his geodesic dome, including his Expo ’67 pavilion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document