Research on the quality of educational standards, our knowledge about the quality of textbooks, and the performance of high-achieving students on international assessments all point to the need for exemplary curricula for gifted and talented young people. The gap between research in these areas and the needs of gifted and talented learners is startlingly clear. This article includes information about the development of a rubric that was originally designed to assess the quality of curricular units that are submitted annually to the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Curriculum Division's Curriculum Competition. The article also includes information about 4 different, but related, uses for the rubric. Ultimately, we hope that the use of this tool and assessment technique by practitioners across the country will begin to close the enormous gap between the learning needs of gifted and talented young people and curricula.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adler, M. J. (Ed.). (1952). The great ideas: A syntopicon of great books of the Western world. (2 volumes). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.
2.
Ankeney, K., Del Rio, R., Nash, G. B., & Vigilante, D. (1996). Bring history alive! A sourcebook for teaching United States history. Los Angeles: National Center for History in the Schools.
3.
Ann Arbor Public Schools. (1993). Alternative assessment. Palo Alto, CA: Seymour.
4.
Barbe, W. B., & Renzulli. J. S. (1981). Psychology and education of the gifted (3rd ed.). New York: Irvington.
5.
Betts, G. (1985). The Autonomous Learner Model for gifted and talented. Greeley, CO: Autonomous Learning Publications.
6.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.
7.
Bracey, G. W. (1993). Elementary curriculum materials: Still a long way to go. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 654-656.
8.
Bradley, A. (1999, October 6). Science group finds middle school textbooks inadequate. Education Week, p. 5-5.
9.
Brandwein, P. F. (1981). The gifted student as future scientist. Ventura, CA: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools.
10.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks. M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms (Rev. ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
11.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Whittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.
12.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
Bruner, J. S. (1968). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: Norton.
14.
Bruner, J. (1985, June/July). Models of the learner. Educational Researcher, 14, 5-8.
15.
Burke, K. (1994). How to assess authentic learning. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Publishing.
16.
Canciolo, P. J., & VanCamp, M. E. (1991). The analysis of commonly used literature materials. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED327865)
17.
Cawelti, G. (Ed.). (1995). Handbook of research on improving student achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
18.
Chall, J. S., & Conard, S. S. (1991). Should textbooks challenge students? The case for easier or harder textbooks. New York: Teachers College Press.
19.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1989). Education of the gifted and talented (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20.
Deitch, J. W. (1996). Using primary source documents: An educators guide to the perspectives on history series.Carlisle, MA: Discovery Enterprises.
21.
Deitch. J. W. (1998). Using primary source documents: An educators guide to the perspectives on history series. Part III. Carlisle, MA: Discovery Enterprises.
22.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
23.
Education Week. (Ed.). (2001, January 1). A better balance: Standards, tests, and the tools to succede [Special Issue]. Education Week, 20(17).
24.
English, F. W. (1992). Deciding what to teach and test. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
25.
Erickson, L. (1999). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond the facts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
26.
Flanders, J. R. (1987). How much of the content in mathematics textbooks is new?Arithmetic Teacher, 35, 18-23.
27.
Friedman, M. I., & Fisher, S. P. (1998). Handbook of effective instructional strategies. Columbia, SC: Institute for Evidence-Based Decision-Making in Education.
28.
Gagnon, P. (1988). Why study history?Atlantic Monthly, 262(5), 43-66.
29.
Gallagher, S. A., & Stepien, W. J. (1996). Content acquisition in problem-based learning: Depth vs. breadth in American studies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 257-275.
30.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. New York: BasicBooks.
31.
Gronlund, N. E. (1995). How to write and use instructional objectives (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32.
Hertzog, N. B. (1998). Open-ended activities: Differentiation through learner response. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 212-227.
33.
Hoff, D. J. (2000, December 13). U.S. students' scores drop by 8th grade. Education Week, pp. 1-1, 20-20.
34.
Hollingsworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: MacMillan.
35.
Hunter, M. (1994). Mastery teaching. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
36.
Jones, R. (2000). Textbook trouble. American School Board Journal, 187(12), 18-21.
37.
Joyce, B. R., & Weil, M. (1995). Models of teaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
38.
Kaplan, S. N. (1979). Language arts and social studies curriculum at the elementary school. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), NSSE yearbook: The gifted and talented (pp. 155-168). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (1997). Content knowledge: A compendium of standards and benchmarks for K-12 education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
40.
Mager, R. F. (1997). Preparing instructional objectives (3rd Ed.) Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Performance.
41.
Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
42.
Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1995). Teaching models in education of the gifted (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
43.
Manzo, K. K. (1999, May 19). Book smarts. Education Week, pp. 37-41.
44.
Marzano, R. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
45.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & McTighe, J. (1993). Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment using the Dimensions of Learning Model. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
46.
Meeker, M. (1969). The structure of intellect: Its interpretations and uses. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
47.
Montessori, M. (1926). The Montessori method: Scientific pedagogy as applied to child education in the “Children's Houses.” (A. George, Trans). Cambridge, MA: Bentley.
48.
National Archives and Records Administration. (1989). Teaching with documents: Using primary sources from the National Archives. Washington, DC: National Archives Trust Fund Board.
49.
National Association for Gifted Children. (1994). Differentiation of curriculum and instruction, Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(4), inside back cover.
50.
National Council on Educational Standards and Testing. (1992). Raising standards for American education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
51.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (March, 1999). Highlights from TIMSS: Overview and key findings across grade levels. Retrieved August 15, 1999, from http://nces.ed.gov/timss.
52.
Passow, A. H. (1982). Differentiated curricula for the gifted: Selected proceedings for the First National Conference on Curricula for the Gifted/Talented. Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented.
53.
Perkins, D. (1995). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York: Free Press.
54.
Phenix, P. H. (1964). Realms of meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
55.
Piaget, J. (1963). Origins of intelligence in children. New York: Free Press.
56.
Piirto, J. (1998). Talented children and adults: Their development and education (2nd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall
57.
Quality counts 2001: A better balance. (2001, January 11). Education Week, 20(17)..
58.
Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992) Curriculum compacting. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
59.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model. Wethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
60.
Renzulli, J. S. (1982). What makes a problem real: Stalking the illusive meaning of quantitative differences in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 4, 147-156.
61.
Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
62.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
63.
Sewall, G. T. (1988). America's history textbooks: Where do we go from here?Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 553-558.
64.
Stanley, J. C., & Benbow, C. P. (1982). Educating mathematically precocious youth: Twelve policy recommendations. Educational Researcher, 11(5), 4-9.
65.
Steen, L A. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.
66.
Stepien, W., & Gallagher, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 25-28.
67.
Steffey, S., & Hood, W. J. (Eds.). (1994). If this is social studies, why isn't it boring?York, ME: Stenhouse.
68.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
69.
Taba, H. (1966). Teaching strategies and cognitive functioning in elementary school children (USOE Cooperative Research Project No. 2404). San Francisco: San Francisco State College.
70.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1998). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
71.
Tyler, R. (1961). Principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
72.
Tyson-Bernstein, H. (1988). A conspiracy of good intentions: America's textbook fiasco. Washington, DC: The Council for Basic Education.
73.
Usiskin, Z. (1987). Why elementary algebra should and must be an eighth grade course for average students. Mathematics Teacher, 80, 428-438.
74.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Planning effective curriculum for gifted learners. Denver: Love.
75.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
76.
Viadaro, D. (1997, April 2). Surprise! Analysis link curriculum, TIMSS test scores. Education Week, p. 6-6.
77.
Viadaro, D. (1999, October 6). Ed department is set to release its list of recommended math programs. Education Week, pp. 1-1, 14-14.
78.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
79.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249-294.
80.
Ward, V. S. (1961). Educating the gifted: An axiomatic approach. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
81.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
