This article delineates the results of 7 gifted program evaluation studies conducted in 20 different school districts and places them in the context of major areas for gifted program improvement. The author suggests that the field of gifted education may be vulnerable to losing its infrastructure at local levels if enhanced program development in key areas does not occur over the next few years and if the studied districts are at all similar to the larger group. The paper discusses key areas of program development including identification, curriculum, program design, staff development, parental involvement assessment, and evaluation. The author contends that attention to these areas is essential for improving gifted program quality and stabilizing programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28-38.
2.
Avery, L., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2001). Investigating the impact of gifted education evaluation at state and local levels: Problems with traction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 153-176.
3.
Avery, L., VanTassel-Baska, J., & O’Neill, B. (1997). Making Making evaluation work: One school district’s model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 28-37.
4.
Carter, K. R. (1992). A model for evaluating programs for the gifted under non-experimental conditions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 266-283.
5.
Coleman, L. (1995). The power of specialized educational environments in the development of giftedness: The need for research on social context. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 171-176.
6.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (1993). Relationships between programming practices and outcomes in a summer residential school for gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 420-441.
7.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiring and research design: Choosing many fine traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (1998). The 1998 state of the states gifted and talented education report. Denver, CO: Author.
9.
Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2003). State of the states report. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
10.
Denzin, N. K. (2000). The practices and politics of interpretation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 897-922). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Eisenhart, M. A., & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in qualitative research. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millery, & J. Preissle (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 643-680). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
12.
Farrell, B. G. (1992). Lesson plan analysis as a program evaluation tool. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 23-26.
13.
Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (2000). Qualitative inquiry: Tensions and transformations. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1025-1046). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
House, E. R., & Lappan, S. (1994). Evaluation of programs for disadvantaged gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 441-466.
15.
Hunsaker, S. L., & Callahan, C. M. (1993). Evaluation of gifted programs: Current practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 190-200.
16.
Johnsen, S. K. (2000, Fall). What the research says about accountability and program evaluation. Tempo, 23-30.
17.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.
18.
Landrum, M. S., & Shaklee, B. (Eds.). (1998). Pre-K-12 gifted program standards. Washington DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
19.
Parker, J. P. (2002). Directory of graduate degree programs and services in gifted and talented education. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
20.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Schalock, R. L. (2001). Outcome-based evaluation (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
22.
Scriven, M. (2000). Evaluation ideologies. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. E. Madaus, & T. Kellagha (Eds.), Evaluation models (pp. 249-278). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
23.
Shark, G. (2002). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
24.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Evaluation models. In G. T. Gary & J. C. Greene (Eds.), New directions for evaluation (pp. 7-99). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1994). Planning effective evaluations for programs for the gifted. Roeper Review, 17, 45-54.
27.
Treffinger, D. J. (1998). From gifted education to programming for talent development. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 752-755.
28.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: Author.
29.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). The development of academic talent: A mandate for educational best practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 760-763.
30.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Avery, L. (1997). Perspectives on evaluation: Local considerations. Research Briefs, 11, 118-128.
31.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L., Struck, J., Feng, A., Bracken, B., Drummond, D., et al. (2003). The William and Mary Classroom Observation Scales-Revised. College of William and Mary, Center for Gifted Education, Project Athena: Williamsburg, VA.
32.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Feng, A. (2004). Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
33.
Vaughn, V. L., Feldhusen, J. F., & Asher, J. W. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 92-97.
