Virtually there – transforming gifted education through new technologies,trends and practices in learning,international communication and global education

Abstract

‘It is the year 2025 and I am compiling this article for an instant VPD (videopod) that is streamed over the world. An EESR (Educational Expert Service Request) came from an empathetic computer HIAS (Hi, I am Sam) that matched my qualifications with a quest by online activists SFT (Searching for Truth) to examine global interactions in education. This online SFT think tank is examining brilliance in action with ideas generated through WCN (wireless communications networks) in their brains. I have consulted and updated my IM (I am) virtual self that contains my visual image and bodily movements with facial expressions, having internalized video images with my values and actions, and monitored my biological rhythms. My IM will present my best contemporary self via a virtual social network system with a database of my past interactions and intelligent decisions. I have spoken certain words: gifted students; global issues; sustainability; social change, etc. The intelligent search site has screened millions of information bits from journal articles, research studies, multimedia presentations and contemporary thought; related this to my previous compilations; compared this with other expert trends in thoughts and compiled my VPD. My global (and galactic) audience is instantaneous and can drop in at any time to request a chat with their IM or add new information to the compilation or a TW (transformational WIKI). I link this to my virtual families with simultaneous translations into other ethnic languages and send the link to my authentic family connections on four continents. Join in this virtual knowledge conversation, recreated constantly. Here it is…’

Keywords

intelligent search engines virtual selves biological monitors expert systems constructing information ethnic connections asynchronous learning new technologies and the brain global education gifted education

How close is this scenario? A review of trends indicates that these social changes are already being developed: intelligent search engines, virtual selves, biological monitors, new language terms and abbreviations, expert systems, individuals constructing information, resurgence of ethnic connections and asynchronous learning (Kurzweil, 2005; Silke, 2009; World Future Society, 2011). This first paper will examine how these current innovations have already produced social and educational changes that have and will continue to impact and transform our students around the world, our teaching practices and our concepts of giftedness. The first part of the article examines school reform, reviews the latest thinking on the impact of new technology on the brain and examines trends in technology. The second part examines the impact of new technologies on gifted education in terms of six Ps: the power, the person, the places, the practices, the productivity and the projections.

School reform

With the evolution of technology and the exponential expansion of information and knowledge, schools and teachers are in a constant state of having to ‘catch up’ with a world inhabited by their students. Teachers, most of whom grew up without technology and think and work with the use of technology are ‘digital immigrants’, whereas today’s students think and interact through technology and are ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001). Teachers communicate a curriculum created in the past that struggles to be relevant in the present, with the added dilemma that students are being prepared for careers that may not even exist today. The socio-political power of the Internet to impact social change has been demonstrated recently in global events in Tunisia and Egypt (January 2011), in the impact of sites such as Wiki Leaks, in the spontaneous flash mobs and in the increasing control by governments.

Whereas television was once seen as the first curriculum in opposition to school in terms of the number of hours students spent watching, the Internet has taken over as the first curriculum. Data show that ‘time spent online among children aged 2–11 increased 63 percent in the last five years, from nearly 7 hours in May 2004 to more than 11 hours online in May 2009’ (Nielson, 2011). Students spend up to 50 hours per week online and ‘wired’ to their iPods, iPads, computers and smart telephones, so much so that in South Korea this is viewed as a major health crisis, and camps have been set up to counsel students who have become ‘addicted’ (Kurzwell, 2008 ; PBS, 2010). Excessive use and dependence on the Internet has been linked to depression and pathology (Lam and Peng, 2010). Schools now have to include secure, ethical and healthy use of the Internet in their curricula. The fear that the Internet isolates students may be unfounded with moderate usage; research has shown that in children who spend 37% less time watching television, the time they spent with relatives and friends online increased 16% (Burkhardt et al., 2003: 22).

Standards in technology have been identified by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, 2007) and integrated into the pre-K-12 gifted education standards (www.nagc.org). NETS (National Education Technology Standards) in the USA exist for administrators, teachers and students; those for students include skills such as creativity, communication, research, critical thinking, citizenship and technology concepts. In a discussion on technology and constructivism, Barr (1990) stated the essential goals of educational reform should focus on a curriculum that is independent, individualized, interactive, interdisciplinary and intuitive. The World Future Society points out that the most critical 21st-century skill is foresight (World Future Society, 2011). Christensen et al. (2008) have shown the importance of ‘disruptive innovation’ to school reform – i.e. new technologies, perspectives and learning experiences need to ‘disrupt’ the obsolete systems, programs and practices that inhibit meaningful and relevant learning that can be individualized and student centered. Eriksson (2010) has pointed out the importance of linking authentic, real-world, primary connections with others to the virtual connections to ensure the full social, cultural, emotional and intellectual development of students.

Impact of new technologies on the brain

Research on the impact of technology on the mind and the activity in the brain has shown that neuroplasticity is a core process (Carr, 2010). The implication that neuroplastic adaptations are being made daily, that the brain can build new or deeper connections through physical or mental practices or weaken others through neglect has been demonstrated in a range of studies that have mapped brain activity (Pascual-Leone et al., 2005). The ways that we direct attention through our cultural perspectives, our habits of thought, our interpretations of experience and our schools and media impact the synaptic activity in our brains and restructure our behavior and responses. While determinists view the brain as a mechanism that is subject to the laws of physics and mathematics (and therefore can be replicated, possibly through artificial intelligence), instrumentalists view the brain as in control of the tools of technology used to achieve personal goals (Carr, 2010). Kurzweil (2005) links biological evolution to technological evolution with constant and rapid acceleration generating a ‘singularity’ in brain and machine where human limitations are transcended and the highest levels of creativity are possible. Cultural influences in learning how to read can impact adult neuropsychological systems – how visual signals are interpreted and stored in memory. ‘Brain scans have also revealed that people whose written language uses logographic symbols, like the Chinese, develop a mental circuitry for reading that is different from the circuitry found in people whose written language employs a phonic alphabet’ (Carr, 2010: 123).

Carr (2010: 107) has identified four categories of technologies:

those that extend our physical strength, dexterity or resilience;

those that extend the range or sensitivity of the senses;

those that enable us to reshape nature; and

those we use to extend or support our mental powers – ‘intellectual technologies’.

In his text, The Shallows, Carr (2010) describes how the factors that go into how the Internet are structured, filtered by search engines and presented visually with hyperlinks (which encourage scanning, switching, decoding and restructuring) have led to an attention span driven by short, quick, shallow excerpts of information. In a research study at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) of 24 subjects comparing Internet users with novices, Small et al. (2009) found that distinctive neural pathways had developed in Internet users, specifically the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Interviews with students by Rushkoff (PBS, 2010) show that students are now thinking in paragraphs, rather than in whole arguments across pages. This is leading to a state of constant distractedness – synaptic activity that is constantly reinforced and impacting the brain. As Carr (2010) points out, we need to balance Internet use with deep reading and time for quiet, sustained concentration and contemplation: ‘There needs to be time for efficient data collection and time for inefficient contemplation, time to operate the machine and time to sit idly in the garden’ (p. 381).

Technology trends

Architecture of online space

With increasing computer use for learning, the spaces that students occupy have taken on new meaning. Architects are moving toward a concept of a learning space that is modifiable and modular, fully wired for multimedia, conducive to social interaction and group based rather than teacher based. Libraries have taken on new functions as workstations and social spaces rather than repositories, where the Internet café model draws students. Many forms of multimodal and online courses have developed using a range of online spaces and platforms that include blogs, wikis, social networks, video pods, Second Life, etc., where students can transform not only the online spaces they inhabit, but also themselves as avatars in virtual spaces. Rushkoff (PBS, 2010), in examining how the Internet is being used in schools by students, shows that they are surfing, texting and blogging to their friends, playing games and using the camera as a mirror, all while working on school assignments. Professors and teachers today know that their students are ‘distracted’ by their smart telephones and computers in class and that anything teachers say or do can be recorded, filmed and posted online. While some schools restrict access to increase attention to face-to-face lessons, others have addressed this issue by making new technologies and literacies the core of the curriculum, such as the Charter School, which uses games, smart tools and mathematical models to generate a curriculum that is differentiated and individualized (Quest to Learn, 2011).

Time

Most Americans now spend 8.5 hours per day looking at a screen (television, monitor, mobile telephone) (Council for Research Excellence, 2009). The concept of time in learning has changed from careful synchronous scheduling to a fluid and continuous process where learning takes place anywhere and anytime in an online format. This asynchronous learning mode means that online information is also constantly modifiable and changing, as hyperlinks appear and disappear, and information is updated, modified and extended. Teachers can use tracking tools to examine the time a student spends on every content area or tool in an online course, and time itself can enter into the evaluation process. The access to information, being dominated by core companies who control servers and the search engines, generate consumers who seek quicker, competitive attention grabbers, where scanning and surfing through hyperlinks becomes an end in itself. The reality that search engines such as Google use an economy model, efficiency, driven by the number and pace of responses, to determine results on the page and direct vision, shows that time is an essential commodity with Internet usage (Carr, 2010).

Multitasking

Online behavior today demands effective tools for multitasking that are instant, efficient and linked, so that email, social networking, streaming, online searching, word processing and learning online are operating simultaneously. We are both attracted to and distracted from content that fights for attention. With the hyperlinks and hypermedia, content on websites is fragmented into small chunks that can include video streams, navigational tools, advertisements and widgets, which are also interrupted by RSS readers, Facebook and Twitter messages. This state of distraction can lead to a lack of creativity, which requires time for incubation before illuminating ideas develop (Carr, 2010).

This has impacted reading habits. Surveys have shown a decline in reading printed works, particularly for the 25–34 year-old group, avid users of the Internet, who spent only 49 minutes per week on reading print in 2008, reduced by 29% from 2004 (Carr, 2010). Research comparing groups who used paper documents with those who used hypertext documents showed the response to questions to be superior in the paper document group (Carr, 2010). The advantages of using e-books allows for a more extensive examination of content as we can scan pages, make notes, link to references and websites, and search for definitions or jump to websites to examine concepts. At the same time, however, these facilities also make it possible to deconstruct books, both personalizing them but also leading to fragmentation. Publishers are linking textbooks with online learning sites, integrating books with video (‘vooks’); linking books with online networks for discussion and customizing textbooks for instructors and students, in an ever-increasing competition for customers.

Constructing knowledge

The ability to customize learning online allows content to be modified to meet the unique needs of the learner, in terms of both cultural perspectives and learning styles as well as interests and abilities. The role of the learner is an active one, as he or she can construct and contribute to knowledge, posting his or her creations on websites, wikis, networks or video sites (YouTube), all of which empower the individual. At the same time, however, the selection of information online is controlled and filtered by search engines, publishers, associations and boards, which have their own motivations. This has been termed ‘knowledge imperialism’ where outside agencies are filtering information by selecting according to what is most expedient, efficient and profitable. The freedom of the Internet both hinders and facilitates choice in this predicament about who is constructing knowledge and how credible or valid that knowledge is.

Interactivity and social networking

Learning is a social experience as students and teachers exchange ideas and examine a range of issues, experiences and sources of information, both primary and secondary. In a technology-driven network, the meaning of knowledge lies in consensus, and new forms of literacy are unfolding as students struggle to determine reliability and credibility. At the core is the need to be constantly and instantly connected, with social networks (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn, etc.) and instant messaging becoming dominant and the telephone and face-to-face meetings taking on lesser importance in learning. Students are defining themselves by their number of connections or ‘friends’ online and are creating profiles that identify themselves; profiles that can be used by future employers or make them susceptible to predators. This can also make them subject to cyberbullying, leading to tragic consequences such as suicide (Cyberbullying.us). The use of video-calling online (Skype) has allowed for a direct face-to-face online conversation across the globe that makes it possible to link with relatives, students, schools or colleagues daily without cost. New forms of conferencing have emerged, with webinars becoming popular for supplementing learning and advocacy, particularly for teachers of the gifted (NAGC.org WOW series).

Ethics

Teachers today are faced with having to teach ethics and appropriate Internet use before both training in technology and exploration of content areas. In addition, the training of online behavior, or ‘netiquette’, has become necessary to buffer the clipped messages, abbreviations and new communication and language formats used in instant messaging (Digizen.org; Digitalcitizenship.net). A dilemma in censorship exists between allowing access to information and providing a secure, safe use of the Internet, with schools and institutions creating their own filters and controls. Gardner (2007) had identified ‘Five Minds of the Future’, essential for success and foundational to excellence: the disciplined mind, the synthesizing mind, the creative mind (cognitive spectrum), the respectful mind and the ethical mind (interpersonal interactions). The last two are foundational to 21st-century citizenship, including an awareness of diversity, equity and social justice and the rights of marginalized groups and the responsibility to make wise decisions and act ethically.

Global education

Gardner (2007) points out our responsibility as world citizens in an online age to address the major global issues faced by those experiencing poverty, disease and social and cultural conflicts. Education today offers the opportunity to study abroad with a range of universities, some with satellite campuses in many countries, and most offering degree programs fully online that transcend countries, languages and cultures. Global advocacy, such as that provided through the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, brings an enriched knowledge and global partnerships that can link schools and students around the world. Projects such as Interactive Expeditions (INTX, 2010) have linked noted drummers in Cape Town, South Africa, with elementary music students playing drums in a community school in downtown Orlando, Florida, USA – enriching their cultural knowledge and aesthetic appreciation of indigenous music. Many international advocacy projects, such as the Global Oneness Project (2011), provide media to explore the concept of global connectedness, coupled with global citizenship.

Practices – transforming gifted education

Power

Teachers of the gifted are facilitators, guides, motivators, monitors and catalysts to creative thought and productivity – all roles that are fully appropriate to student-centered virtual learning. Research on views of teachers of the gifted to using technology show the importance of training and the potential for intuitive software that is student centered (Shaughnessy, 2007). The Internet interface empowers individuals to set goals, search for information and deconstruct and then reconstruct knowledge that is relevant for each learner. In addition, it also empowers marginalized groups who can find support and advocacy for their own causes, providing a buffer to the prejudice they may experience in face-to-face interactions. Networks for gifted students and teachers, such as the Gifted Kids Network and Hoagies Gifted Education Page, and Davidson Institute and blogs, such as Ingeniosus (#gtchat), provide valuable reference materials as well as advocacy and support.

Person

In line with the learning characteristics, gifted students are attracted to new technologies that cater to their drive for depth and complexity, the rapid pace of their learning, the inductive nature of the materials presented, the interdisciplinary focus and linkages, the open source materials available (MIT Blossom), the visual formatting and the exposure to the methods of practicing professionals. New technologies enable efficient assessment of needs and abilities, individualization of interests to motivations, and the customization of learning to challenge their intellectual abilities and create a differentiated curriculum.

Siegle (2004) has identified three areas of ‘technological giftedness’: programmers, who are experts at the design and construction of computer languages and operations; interfacers, who have expert knowledge of both software and hardware with a wide consumer knowledge; and fixers, who are expert at maintaining the equipment and enjoy creating the technology.

They have a high interest in technology and spend free time developing technology skills. They often experiment and teach themselves new technologies. They are also skilled at transferring what they have learned from one technology or program to other technologies or programs. They are able to incorporate technologies in developing creative eproducts, assignments, and presentations. They take initiative and learning new software without formal training. They can assist others with technology-related problems.

(Siegle, 2004: 14)

Several methods for identifying technological giftedness have been developed in line with these three major types, including assessment of proficiency in computer programming and languages, behavioral rating scales and evaluation of technology products and performances. A revision of the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) includes a technology scale based on expertise using technology, interest and initiative in using technology, mentoring others in technology and creative integration of technology (Renzulli et al., 2003).

Places

Gifted students have an array of possible places with new learning environments to challenge their own thinking, learning and productivity. A wide choice of virtual field trips, experiments, demonstrations, simulated games based on historical events and simulated experiences (such as the Everglades Experience and the Army Experience) are easily accessed. Several online virtual schools have offered the possibility of not only completing enrichment and acceleration online, but tailoring these directly to the individual interests and abilities of gifted students (such as Florida Virtual School (FLVS) and Northwestern Center for Talent Development). In addition, programs such as Renzulli Learning, which is of particular relevance to gifted students, are becoming widespread internationally, not only in the regular classroom, but also for use at home. With the expansion of online learning and educational networks and systems, the use of avatars and simulations is a challenging option (such as Second Life), not only for social networking but also for classroom discussions, explorations and demonstrations. Already, the virtual classroom allows pre-service teachers in the College of Education to simulate students’ classroom interactions by engaging with avatars through student actors from the Interactive Performance Lab at the Institute of Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida.

Processes

Computers can be used at different levels to challenge the cognitive development of gifted students: the CAI (computer-aided instruction) level; the CBI (computer-based instruction) level; and computer-facilitated creative productivity. At the CAI level, mastery of content through drill and practice or tutorials allow for accelerative content and offers access to open-source programs (Blossom, MIT), as well as simulations, puzzles and mind-teasing or online games (LOGO). At the CBI level, online courses are available, such as those offered at virtual schools, which present selected content and assess achievement of objectives. Authoring systems provide another opportunity for gifted students to create their own software. At the computer-facilitated creative productivity level, students use data analysis software, presentation programs, websites and wikis to develop and communicate independent investigations of real problems. An example of how online learning can be customized for gifted students is Renzulli Learning, which assesses interests and generates enrichment experiences while stimulating creative and critical thinking, in working towards authentic products. The role of social networking in meeting the socio-emotional needs of gifted students is becoming an increasingly powerful tool.

Productivity

New technologies, design software and Internet access has provided a dynamic forum for the design, composition, expression and communication in the arts with an outlet for presentations, performances and products. While the arts are often viewed as peripheral to ‘real’ content learning in schools, and subject to budget cuts, the full potential of these new technologies is to unite the arts and the sciences, with a renewed value placed on design and new career opportunities for those talented in the arts (Pink, 2006). Not only does this offer constant stimulation to gifted and talented students, with visual games, brain teasers and design puzzles, but it brings together both the imaginative and analytical processes in generating creative productivity (www.vihart.com). The Internet Science and Technology Fair (www.istf.ucf.edu) challenges students to examine the use of the Internet in the future of science and engineering.

The Enrichment Cluster model (Renzulli and Bachinski, 2011) is an inquiry-based learning model that groups students in clusters to work on topics and develop authentic products or services. This model establishes groups of students and creates possible communities online that can bridge interests, schools, districts, states, countries and advocacy groups to work on addressing creative problems and producing authentic products. An adaptation of this model, Enrichment 2.0, includes ways that technology that can be used in these clusters, such as podcasting, blogging, photo sharing, mapping, bookmarking, wikis, collaborative graphic organizers, social networking and collaborative documents (Eckstein, 2008; Gifted Kids Network). In terms of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) these clusters are arranged into three categories: type I (general exploratory activities), type II (creative and critical thinking skills and methods of practicing professionals); and type III (independent investigations of real problems). A database of enrichment clusters is maintained at the Neag Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development (University of Connecticut).

Projections: future innovations

It is clear that the Internet and other technology tools have transformed not only the way we challenge the development of gifted students, but the process of constructing knowledge itself. Projections into future learning environments include a transformation of the spaces, interactions, realities and expectations of learners. An increasing use of robotics is evident; researchers are developing robotic elementary teaching assistants that learn by socializing (Standbury, 2010). The potential for these and other forms of artificial intelligence to remove some of the more tedious and repetitive tasks is an asset, allowing teachers to provide authentic learning experiences. We need to balance the constant distractions with opportunities to use contemplative thought as we generate productive solutions to critical problems that impact people in crisis around the world. To excel in the future, gifted learners need to be more globally conscious, more active in addressing problems with solutions that have real impact, more connected with what really matters. In doing so, they need to be fluent in their ability to analyze data, search effectively, scrutinize online information, make responsible choices in creating online profiles and stimulate online advocacy. They need to imagine possible futures, through strategies used by Ferriter and Garry (2009): aggregating information, writing open letters to world leaders, telling powerful visual stories, studying challenging ideas together and problem solving. We are virtually there – almost there with our distractedness but very much there in virtual reality as we rediscover our complementary nature using these technologies for their best purposes.

In 1831, Alphonse de Lamartine wrote that ‘thought will spread across the world with the rapidity of light, instantly conceived, instantly written, instantly understood’. In 1889, in Harpers, Edward Bellamy predicted that people would read with their eyes closed, and carry around audio players called ‘indispensable’, containing all their books, newspapers and magazines (ref. in Carr, 2010). It appears that the future of technology has left its trail of hints or ‘breadcrumbs’ about future projections and it is up to us as teachers of gifted students to follow and guide this treasure hunt as we evolve with it.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Barr

(1990) A solution in search of a problem: the role of technology in educational reform. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14: pp. 79–95.

Burkhardt

Monsour

Valdez

Gunn

Dawson

Lemke

(2003) 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age. Available at: www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/engagge21st.pdf.

Carr

(2010) The Shallows: What the Internet is doing to our Brains. W. W. Norton & Company, New York, NY.

Christensen

Horn

Johnson

(2008) Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Council for Research Excellence (2009) The Video Consumer Mapping Study. Available at: www.researchexcellence.com/vcm_overview.pdf.

Crown (2004) Teaching able, gifted and talented pupils: Design and technology. Department of Education, Cheshire, U.K. Available at: http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/96565.

Eckstein

(2008) Enrichment 2.0: An adaptation of the Enrichment Cluster model utilizing web technologies. Paper presented at Confratute, University of Connecticut.

Eriksson

(2010) Authentic and virtual global connections: the transformation of gifted education. Gifted Education International 27: 19–28.

Ferriter

Garry

(2009) Teaching the iGeneration: 5 Easy Ways to Introduce Essential Skills With Web 2.0 Tools. Solution Tree Press, Bloomington, IN.

10.

Gardner

(2007) Five Minds for the Future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

11.

Global Oneness Project (2011) About the Project. Available at: www.globalonenessproject.org/.

12.

Interactive Expeditions INTX (2010) Interactive Cultural Transect. University of Central Florida. Available at: www.interactiveexpeditions.com and viewed on the website www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUz4noSeEwM.

13.

ISTE, International Society for Technology in Education (2007) Standards for Global Learning in the Digital Age. ISTE-NETS. Available at: www.iste.org/standards.aspx.

14.

Kurzweil

(2005) Ray Kurzweil on how technology will transform us. TED Conferences 2008. Available at: www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_on_how_technology_will_transform_us.html.

15.

Kurzweil

(2005) The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Viking Press New York, NY.

16.

Kurzweil

(2008) On how technology will transform us. TED Conferences 2008. Available at: www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_on_how_technology_will_transform_us.

17.

Lam

Peng

Z-W

(2010) Effect of pathological use of the internet on adolescent mental health: A prospective study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 164(10):901-906.

18.

Nielson (2011) Growing Up, and Growing Fast: Kids 2–11 Spending More Time Online. The 18 Nielson Company.

19.

Pascual-Leone

Amedi

Fregni

Berabet

(2005) The plastic human brain cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 28: 377–401.

20.

PBS (2010) Digital Nation, Life on the Virtual Frontier. PBS Frontline. Available at: www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/.

21.

Pink

(2006) A Whole New Mind: Why Right Brainers Will Rule the Future. Penguin Company, New York, NY.

22.

Prensky

(2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon. MCB

University

Press. Vol. 9, No. 5.

23.

Quest to Learn (2011) Charter School: The Mission. Available at: www.q2l.org/purpose.

24.

Renzulli

Bachinski

(2011) The Enrichment Cluster Database. Available at: http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/clusters/.

25.

Renzulli

Reis

S.M

Gavin

Siegle

Sytsma

(2003) Four new scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Indianapolis, IN.

26.

Shaughnessy

(2007) Attitudes toward information technology of teachers of the gifted: Implications for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly 51: 119–135.

27.

Siegle

(2004) Identifying students with gifts and talents in technology. Gifted Child Today, 27 (4): 30–34. Available at: www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/Publications/GCTIdentifyingStudentsWithGifts.pdf.

28.

Silke

(2009) Tracking the Future. Available at: www.danielsilke.com.

29.

Small

Moody

Siddarth

Bookheimer

(2009) Your brain on Google: patterns of cerebral activation during internet searching. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 17(2): 116–126.

30.

Standbury

(2010) Coming soon to a classroom near you: Robot teachers? eSchool News 13(9): 25.

31.

World Future Society (2011) 20 forecasts for 2011–2025. Trends and breakthroughs likely to affect your work, your investments, and your family. The Futurist Magazine. Available at: www.wfs.org/forecasts/index.htm.