The authors suggest that the recent focus on excellence in public education will lead to an increase in the evaluation of gifted programs. They maintain that evaluation of gifted programs should be formative, as opposed to summative, because gifted programming serves a valuable social need. The authors describe the process that evaluators go through to conduct a program evaluation, and then present their program evaluation model. Two approaches are integrated in their model. First, process-oriented evaluation defines essential program components and standards of acceptance. Second, outcome-oriented evaluation assesses components via student outcomes. Both approaches are described and suggestions are given for their use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Action for excellence. (1983). Denver, CO : Education Commission of the United States. Task Force on Education for Economic Growth. Bloom, B.S., Madeaus, G.F., & Hastings, J.T. (1981). Evaluation to improve learning. New York: McGraw Hill.
2.
Bord, W.R., & Gall, M.D. (1983). Educational research: An introduction (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
Boyer, E.L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper.
5.
Callahan, C.M. (1983). Issues in evaluating programs for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(1), 3-7.
6.
Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally .
7.
Carter, K.R., & Hamilton, W. (1983). Program evaluation report. Gifted and talented education, grades 3-5. Greeley, CO: School District 6.
8.
Carter, K.R., & Hamilton, W. (1984). An evaluation study of curriculum units on higher level thinking skills and independent learning. Greeley, CO: School District 6.
9.
Cronbach, L.J. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
10.
Education and economic progress. (1983). Toward a National Education Policy. New York: The Carnegie Corporation.
11.
Fox, L.H. (1979). Programs for the gifted and talented: An overview . In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talented: Their education and development. The seuenty-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 104-126). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gallagher, J.J. (1979a). Research needs for the education of the gifted . In Issues in gifted education. Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented.
14.
Gallagher, J.J. (1979b). Issues in education for the gifted. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talented: Their education and development. The seventy-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 28-44). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Gallagher, J.J. (1981, November). A report on the national survey. Paper presented at the National Association for Gifted Children , Portland, OR.
16.
Ganopole, S.J. (1982). Measuring the educational outcomes of gifted programs . Roeper Review, 5(1), 4-7.
17.
Glass, G.V., & Stanley, J.C. (1970). Statistical methods in education and psychology . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .
18.
Marland, S.P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented (Vol. 1). Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
19.
A nation at risk. (1983). (Stock No. 065-000-00177-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
20.
Mitchell, B.M. (1984, February). An update on gifted/talented education in the U.S. Roeper Review, 161-163.
21.
Nevo, D. (1983). The conceptualization of educational evaluation: An analytical review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53(1), 117-128.
22.
Payne, D.A., & Brown, C.L. (1982). The use and abuse of control groups in Program evaluation. Roeper Review, 5(1), 11-14.
23.
Pegnato, C.W., & Birch, J.W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools: A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 25(7), 300-304.
24.
Reis, S.M., & Renzulli, J.S. (1982). A research report on the revolving door identification model: A case for the broadened conception of giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan,63, 619-620.
25.
Renzulli, J.S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition . Phi Delta Kappan,60, 180-184.
26.
Renzulli, J.S., Smith, L.H., & Reis, S.M. (1982, January). Curriculum compacting: An essential strategy for working with gifted children. Elementary School Journal , 185-194.
27.
Rubenzer, R.L., & Twaite, J.A. (1979). Attitudes of 1,200 educators toward the education of the gifted and talented: Implications for teacher preparation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2 (4), 202-13. Scriven , M. (1966). Student values as educational objectives. Proceedings of the 1965 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
28.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. E. Stake and Others (Eds.), Perspectives on curriculum evaluation (pp. 39-83). AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1. Chicago: Rand McNally.
