本研究採準實驗研究設計，探究「靜像式情境數學模組」(Situated Instruction in Mathematics using Still Pictures，以下簡稱SIMSP)對國小資優班學生「立即學習成就」、「學習保留能力」、「基模知識量」及「學習意向」之影響。實驗教學包含「速率」、「牛吃草」及「排列組合」三大單元。研究對象為台北市11所國小高年級資優生共60名，包含實驗組與對照組各30名，實驗組接受SIMSP教材進行教學、對照組則接受傳統式奧林匹亞數學教材教學，兩組課程均為18堂課。本研究採自編工具由學習成就(包含立即學習成就及學習保留能力)、基模知識(包含陳述性及程序性基模知識)與學習意向等三方面檢驗實驗效果；另進行問卷與訪談蒐集學生之回饋資料。本研究採單因子共變數分析(ANCOVA)進行實驗效果之統計分析，主要研究發現如下：

一、學習成就表現上的影響
SIMSP明顯有助於提升實驗組學生在「牛吃草」及「排列組合」單元之立即學習成就表現，而在學習保留能力的展現上亦有相同的效果。

二、基模知識表現上的影響
在「陳述性基模知識」部分，SIMSP明顯有助於提升實驗組學生在「牛吃草」單元的基模知識量。而在「程序性基模知識」部分，則在「牛吃草」及「排列組合」單元明顯有助於提升實驗組學生的基模知識量，另外在「速率」單元則呈現部份效果。
三、學習意向上的影響
SIMSP對國小資優班學生在奧林匹亞數學的喜好程度有明顯提升效果，而兩組學生大部分認為奧林匹亞數學對其數學能力有正向幫助。另外，實驗組學生並認為SIMSP明顯有助其自覺性的知識脈絡提取。

綜合而言，本研究發現：使用SIMSP的情境脈絡布題方式，除能有效提升資優生學習動機外，並能有效建立學生相關脈絡知識的完整性及提升其在解題程序知識的習得與保留。最後研究者並根據本研究發現，針對奧林匹亞數學相關後續研究提出相關建議。

The aim of this quasi- experimental designed research was to explore the effect of “Situated Instruction in Mathematics using Still Pictures” (SIMSP) for elementary gifted students. The subjects were 60 gifted students from 11 elementary schools in Taipei; they were evenly divided into experimental group and compare group. The effect of the experimental instruction was examined by “the immediate learning achievement”, “the learning retention ability”, “the quantity of schema knowledge” and “the learning intention”. The mathematic units in the experiments included: “Velocity”, “Cow and Grass” and “Permutation and Combination”. The experimental group attended 18 SIMSP classes, while the control group attended 18 classes using traditional Mathematics Olympiad. Self made test instruments, questionnaires and interviews were undertaken to examine the experimental effects and to collect feedbacks from the students. The data were analyzed by ANCOVA. The major findings were as follows:
1. SIMSP helped the students in the experimental group enhancing their immediate learning achievements as well as learning retention in the units of “Cow and Grass” and “Permutation and Combination”.
2. SIMSP helped the students in the experimental group enlarging their schema knowledge in the unit of “Cow and Grass” and their procedural schema knowledge in the units of “Cow and Grass” and “Permutation and Combination”. However, the effect in the unit of “Velocity” is partial.
3. SIMSP attracted gifted students’ positive intentions towards Mathematics Olympiad. Most students in both groups agreed that Mathematics Olympiad enhanced their mathematic abilities. Furthermore, the students in the experimental group agreed that SIMSP helped them extract the contextual knowledge at the beginning of mathematic problem-solving.
To sum up, this study indicated that, SIMSP, with the questions designed in situations and contexts effectively help the gifted students raising learning motivation, establishing more comprehensive contextual knowledge, and enhancing the learning and maintaining the knowledge /skills of mathematic problem-solving. Suggestions are proposed at the final for future research and instruction of Mathematics Olympiad.

一、 中文部分：
丁春蘭（2003）：國小學童乘除問題的解題表現、後設認知與認知形式之分析研究。國立台中師範學院數學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台中。
毛連塭（1995）：資優教育-課程與教學。台北，五南。
行政院國家科學委員會（2009）：科教處98年度各學門研究計畫徵求書。
李建億（2006）：網際網路專題學習互動歷程之研究。科學教育學刊，14(1)，101-120。
林弘昌（2008）：錨式情境教學法的靜像式情境教材設計。生活科技教育月刊，41(5)，2-11。
林曉菁、姚如芬（2006）：「故事式」面積教學模組之初探。科學教育研究與發展季 刊，44，37-57。
林碧珍（2003）：數學領域的連結—生活情境中的數學。教育研究集刊，3，1-26。
吳宗立（2000）：情境學習論在教學上的應用。人文及社會學科教學通訊，11（3），157-164。
吳武典、蔡崇建（1986）：國中資優生的認知方式與學習方式之探討。特殊教育研究學刊，2，219-230。
吳金聰（1999）：應用數學新課程教學理念於三年級小學數學教學之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東。
吳宛儒、蔡鳳秋、楊德清（2005）：故事情境融入國小數學科教學之研究：以面積單元為例。科學教育研究與發展季刊，41，74-94。
吳開朗（1997）：數學解題理論研究。台北，曉園。
吳惠娟（2005）：龍林教師暢談腦力、專注力與奧數-該校夏令營將加強「學習成功六力」。2010年11月21日，取自http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/5/3/11/n845335.htm
胡蕙芬、張英傑（2009）：從情境學習理論分析美國MIC教材與我國數學教材之課程設計-以「算是與公式」與「四則運算」單元為例，台灣數學教師電子 期刊，17，1-19。
徐偉民（2004）：另類數學教學：以「故事」為媒介。屏師科學教育，19，37-45。
徐新逸（1995）：「錨式情境教學法」教材設計、發展與應用之研究(∥)。行政院國家科學發展委員會專題研究報告 NSC84-2511-S032-001。
徐新逸（1998）：情境學習對教育革新之回應。教育資訊，15(1)，16-24。
郭靜姿（2000）：談資優學生的特殊適應問題與輔導。資優教育季刊，75，1-6。
郭靜姿（2004）：談資賦優異學生的鑑定與輔導。2004年4月21日竹師演講稿。2010年11月23日取自：http://www.nhcue.edu.tw/~spec/4/93/930421.pdf
陳人慧、徐新逸（2005）：兒童說故事活動的魅力與教學策略。國教世紀，215，25-32。
陳啟明（2000）：不同題目表徵型式及相關因素對國小五年級學生解題表現之影響。 國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。
陳智康（2007）：故事情境融入數學寫作教學之研究。國立新竹教育大學碩士論文，未出版，新竹。
許美華（2003）：從認知論的觀點來看乘法文字題的解題歷程。屏師科學教育，17，35-44。
梁雲霞(譯)（2003）：Jensen, E. 著。大腦知識與教學(Teaching with the Brain in Mind)。台北，遠流。
教育部（2001）：國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。
教育部（2009）：特殊教育法。中華民國九十八年11月18日總統華總一義字第09800289381號令。
黃幸美（2003）：討論與真實情境對兒童問題解決的影響。教育研究集刊，49(1)，95-133。
黃幸美（2004）：兒童的數學問題解決與思考。台北：心理。
黃俊仁（2003）：國小五年級學童對有情境的數學文字題解題相關因素之研究。國立屏東師範學院碩士論文，未出版，屏東。
黃敏晃（1991）：淺談數學解題。教與學，23，2-15。
張春興（1994）：教育心理學。台北：東華。
張新仁等（2003）：學習與教學新趨勢。台北：心理。
張馨仁（2000）：從Dabrowski的理論看資優生的情緒發展。資優教育季刊，74，6-18。
楊淑靜（2007）：結合圖示與擬題教學策略進行四則運算文字題補救教學之策略~以國小三年級為例。國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東。
楊瑞智（1994）：國小五、六年級不同能力學童數學解題的思考過程。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
蔡啟楨（2003）：國小中年級資優生數學解題歷程分析。國立中山大學教育研究碩士在職專班論文，未出版，高雄。
葉國平（2006）：國小六年級學生數學解題之基模知識及解題歷程分析—以比、圓面積為例。國立台南大學數學教育學系數學科教學碩士班碩士論文，未出版，台南。
劉京友（2007）：小學數學奧林匹亞訓練題庫。台北，九章。
劉秋木（1996）：國小數學科教學研究。台北，五南。
劉貞宜（2001）：數學資優生的解題歷程分析-以建中三位不同能力的數學資優生為例。資優教育研究，1(2)，97-120。
劉錫麒（1997）：數學思考教學研究。台北，師大書苑。
蕭龍生（1993）：數學認知心理學之研究。台灣省政府教育廳。
謝淡宜（1999）：小學四年級數學資優生與普通生數學解題思考歷程之比較。台南師院學報，32，297-367.

二、西文部份：
Ackerman, C. M. (1993). Investigating an alternate method of identifying gifted students. Unpublished masters’ thesis, The University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Ackerman, C. M. (2009). The Essential Elements of Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration and How They Are Connected. Roeper Review, 31, 81-95.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Anglin, G. J., & Stevens, J. T. (1987). Prose-relevant pictures and recall from science text. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED285 524)
Betts, G. T., & Kercher, J. (1999). Autonomous Learner Model: Optimizing ability. Greeley, CO: ALPS.
Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. NY: David McKay.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-41.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge Massachusetts: Belknap Press.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1994). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Caine, R. (2008). How neuroscience informs our teaching of elementary students. In C. Block, S. Parris, & p. Afflerbach(Eds.), Comprehension Instruction (2nd ed., pp.127-141). NY: Guilford Press.
Caine, R. N., Caine, G., McClintic, C.,& Klimek, K.J. (2009). Brain/Mind Learning Principles in Action: Developing Executive Functions of the Human Brain. (2nd ed.). LA: Corwin Press.
Clark, B. (2007). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school (7th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cobb, P. (1994). Constructivism and learning. In Husen, T. & Postlethwaite, T. N.(Ed.)The international encyclopedia of Education. Englad: Elsevier Science Ltd.,1049-1052
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavior sciences.(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conard, K. S. (1992). Lowering Presevice Teachers Mathematics Anxuetv Through Experience-base Mathematics Methods Course. EDRS.
Conlan, R. (Ed.). (1993). Journey through the mind and body: Blueprint for life. Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992) . The Jasper Experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Developmet , 40 (1) , 65-80.
Confrey, J. (1995). How compatible are radical constructivism, sociocultural approaches, and social constructivism? In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). Constructivism in Education. Hillsadle, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A Nation Deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (1-2). IA: The University of Iowa, The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 284 181.)
Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.). Knowing Learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494).Hillsadle, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cunningham, D. (1992). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A dialogue. In-A Conversation (pp. 35-44). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive Disinteration. Boston: Little Brown & Co.
Diamond, M. (1986). Brain research and its implications for education. Speech presented at the 25th Annual Conference of the California Association for the Gifted, LA.
Diamond, M. (1988). Enriching heredity. NY: Free Press.
Elaine, I. E. (1995).The overexcitability questionnaire: An alternative method for identifying creative giftedness in seventh grade junior high school students. Unpublished docotoral dissertation, Kent State University, Kent. OH.
Freeman, W. (1995). Societies of Brains. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Freudenthal, H. (1971). Geometry between the devil and the deep sea. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3, 413- 435.
Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Riedel.
Gallagher, S. A. (1985). A comparison of Dabrowski’s concept of overexcitabilities with measures of creativity and school achievement in sixth grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Arizona, Tucson Arizona.
Gallagher, J. J., & Gallagher, S. A. (1994). Teaching the Gifted Children (4th Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ginsburg, H. P. (1994). Mathematics learning disabilities: A view from developmental psychology. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 30(2). 20-33.
Greiffenhagen, C., Sharrock, W. (2008). School mathematics and its everyday other? Revisiting Lave’s “Cognition in Practice”. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(1), 1-21.
Greeno, J. G. (1987). Instructional representations based on research about understanding. In A.H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and Mathematics Education. Hillsdale.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. NY: McGrew-Hill.
Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning：Cognition, Instruction, and Reasoning. San Diego, CA：Academic Press.
Heid, M. K. (1983). Characteristics and Special Needs of the Gifted Student in Mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 76(4), 221-226.
Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual-spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 684-689.
Hinsley, D. A., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1977). From words to equations-meaning and representation in algebra word problems. In M. Just & P. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp.89-106). Hillsadle, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kaplan, S. (2009). Layering differentiated curricula for the gifted and talented. In F.A. Karnes & S.M. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (pp.107-133). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Kouba, V. L., Brown, C. A., Carprnter, T. P., Lindquist, M. M., Silver, E. A. & Swafford, M. M. (1988). Results of the forth NAEP assessment of mathematics: Number, Operations, and word problems. Arithmetic Teacher, 35, 14-19.
Kroll, D. L. (1988). Cooperative mathematical problem solving and metacognition: A case study of the three pairs of woman. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
Larkin, J. H., and Simon, H. A., (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
Larkin, J. H.& Chabay, R. W.(1989). Research on teachingscientific thinking: Implications for computer-basedinstruction. In Resnick, L. B.& Klopfer, L. E.(Eds.) Toward the thinkingcurriculum:current cognitiveresearch.1989 Yearbook of the Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development.Alexandria
Lester, K. F. (1980). Research in Mathematics problem solving in R. J. Shumway (Ed.). Research in mathematics education. Reston VA: National Council Mathematics.
Lester, K. F. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 163-176.
Lester, K. F. (1983). Trends and issues in mathematical problem-solving research. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.). Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processer. NY: Academic Press.
Laster, M. T. (2008). Brain-based teaching for all subjects: Patterns to promote learning. Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University.
Lowrie, T. (2000). A case of an individual’s reluctance to visualize. Focus on Learning Problem in Mathematics, 23(1),17-26.
Lowrie, T. & Clements, M. A. (2001). Visual and Nonvisual Processes in Grade 6 Students’ Mathematical Problem solving. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16(1), 77-93.
Lowrie, T. & Kay, R. (2001). Relationship between visual and nonvisual soluation methods and difficulty in elementary mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(4), 248-255.
Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Maquire, E. A., Frith, C. D., & Morris, R. G. M. (1999). The functional neuroanatomy of comprehension and memory: The importance of prior knowledge. Brain, 122, 1839-1850.
Mayer, R. E. (1982). Memory for algebra story problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 199-216.
Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animation need narration: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 484-490.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking problem solving cognition.(2nd ed.). NY: W. H. Freeman and company.
Mayer, R. E. (2000). Intelligence and education. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp.519-533). Cambridge University Press.
McLellan, H. (1996). Situated learning perspectives. N.j.: Educational Technology Publications.
Megan, L. F., & Elham, K. (2001). Learning to Teach Mathematics: Focus on Student Thinking.Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 102-109.
Morelock, M. J. (1996). On the nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing order on chaos. Roeper Review, 19(1), 4-12.
Moyer, J. C., Sowder, L., Threadgill-Sowder, J., & Moyer, M. B. (1984). Story problem formats: Drawn versus verbal versus telegraphics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 342-351.
National Assessment Governing Board U.S. Department of Education (2002).Mathematics Framework for the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved January 10, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/results2003/
Paivio, A.(1971). Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York:Holt, Rinehart
&Winston.
Panksepp, J.(1998). Affective neuroscience. NY: Oxford University Press.
Philip, L. (2009). Situated Learning: What Ever Happened To Educational Psychology? Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 181-192.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B.(1969). The psychology of the child. NY: Basic Books.
Piechowski, M. M. (1997). Emotional giftedness: The measure of intrapersonal intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.) (pp.366-381). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Piechowski, M. M. (1986). The concept of developmental potential. Mensa 21 Research Journal, n21-28, Fall 1986-Spr. 1990, 18-32. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED333 600)
Piechowski, M. M. (1991). Giftedness for all seasons: Inner peace in a time of war. Presented at the Henry B. & Jocelyn Wallace(Eds.), National Research Symposium in Talent Development, University of Iowa.
Polya, G. (1975). How to Solve it. Princeton, N.j.: Princeton University Press.
Rafaele, N., Lauried, E. & Joâo , F. M. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education. Educational studies in Mathematics, 39, 45-65.
Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J. M., & Purcell, J. H. (1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 123-129.
Renzulli, J. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Roeper, A. (1982). How the gifted cope with their emotions. Roeper Review, 5, 21-24.
Rogoff, B.(1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. NY: Oxford University.
Rumelhart, D. E.,& Ortony, A.(1977). The Representation of Knowledge in Memory. InR.C., Anderson, R. J., Spiro & W. E., Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the Acquisition of knowledge. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates(IEA), Publishers Hillsadle, NJ, 99-135.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sal, M., & William, T. (2006). Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration and Giftedness: Overexcitability Research Findings. Jurnal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(1), 68-87.
Scheibel, A. (1993). Review of how the brain operates: Application and implications. A presentation at the Developing Brain: New Frontiers of Research Conference, University of California, LA.
Schoenfleld, A. (1985). Mathematical Problem-Solving .InD.A.Grouws. (ED ). NY: Academics Press.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, cognition, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws(Ed). Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Macmillan Publishing Company, Maxwell Macmillan Canada.
Schultz, R. (2002). Illuminating realities: A phenomenological view from two underachieving gifted learners. Roper Review, 24(4), 203-213.
Silver, E. A. (1982). The Average of 60 and 100 is Not always 80: The Harmonic mean in frist-year Algebra. School Science and Mathematics, 82(8), 682-686.
Silver, E. A. (1987). Foundations of cognitive theory and research for mathematics problem-solving instruction. In A.H. Schoenfeld (E d.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp.33-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate,Inc.
Silverman, L. K. (1993). The gifted individual. In U.K. Silverman(Ed.), Counseling the gifted and tanented(pp. 3-28). Denver, CO: Love publishing Co.
Sowder, L., & Sowder, J. T. (1982). Drown versus verbal formats for mathematical story problem. Journal for Research in Mathematical Education, 13(5), 324-331.
Sprenger, M. (2010). Brain-Based Teaching: In the digital age. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Squire, L. R., & Kandel, E. R. (1999). Memory: From mind to molecules. NY: W. H. Freeman.
Steffe, L. P., & Olive, J. (1991). The problem of fractions in the elementary school. Arithmetic Teacher, 38, 22-24.
Stepanek, J.(1999). The Inclusive Classroom. Meeting the needs of gifted students: Differentiating Mathematics and Science instruction. It’s Just Good Teaching. Northwest Regional Educational Library.
Terman, L. (1925). Mental and physical traits of thousand gifted children. In L. Terman (Ed.), Genetic studies of genius, 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Van Garderen, D. (2006). Spatial Visualization, Visual Imagery, and Mathematical Problem Solving of Students With Varying Abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 496-506.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994).Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. (2rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners. (3rd ed.). Denver: Love.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006).Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Von Glasersfeld, E.(1991).Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Whitehead, G. L. G. (1986). Routine word problems in two variables and metacognitive strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgia State Umiversity.
Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55, 159-169.
Witty, P. (1940). Some considerations in the education of gifted children. Educational Administration and supervision, 26, 512-521.