The purpose of Project TARGET (Teacher Assessment Related to Gifted Education Training ) was to deveiop a gifted program inservice training module that is based on a needs assessment approach. The project was funded by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction and the North Carolina Board of Science and Technology. Specific goals of the project were to develop a needs assessment instrument, administer that instrument, analyze resulting data, develop training modules that responded to assessed needs, and evaluate the results. Evaluation data indicated favorable teacher response to the needs assessment approach and subsequent use of training module activities in teachers' classrooms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arends, R., Hersh, R., & Turner, J. (1978). Inservice education and the six-o'clock news. Theory Into Practice,17, 196-205.
2.
Browder, D. (1983). Guidelines for inservice planning. Exceptional Children, 49(4), 300-306.
3.
Crossland, C., Hasselbring, T., & O'Brien, K. (1982). Project IMPACT: Inservice plan assisting classroom teachers. TEASE,5(2), 53-58.
4.
Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin,51(4), 327-358.
5.
Gallagher, J., Weiss, P., Oglesby, K., & Thomas, T. (1983). Report on education of gifted: Surveys and evidence of program effectiveness. Los Angeles, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute.
6.
Gallagher, J.J. (1975). Teaching the gifted child (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
7.
Houston, W.R. & Frieberg, H.J. (1979). Perpetual motion, blindman's bluff and inservice education, Journal of Teacher Education , 30, 7-9.
8.
Jensen, D., Betz, L., & Zigarmi, P. (1978). If you are listening to teachers, here is how you will organize inservice. NASSP Bulletin, 2, 9-14.
9.
Kaplan, S. (1979). Inservice training manual: Activities for developing curriculum for the gifted/talented. Los Angeles, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute.
10.
Mann, D. (1976). The politics of training teachers in schools. Teachers College Record, 77, 323-338.
11.
Nowak, R., Bolland, K., Clark, F., & Skrtic, T. (1982). Training educators to design, develop and deliver inservice education. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3(3), 9-15.
12.
Powers, D.A. (1983). Mainstreaming and the inservice education of teachers . Exceptional Children, 49(5), 432-439.
13.
Rutherford, W.L., & Weaver, S.W. (1974). Preferences of elementary teachers for preservice and inservice training in the teaching of reading. Journal of Educational Research, 67, 271-275.
14.
Schreiber, T.P. (1975). Inservice education preferences of teachers and administrators in Province of Alberta (Doctoral dissertation, University of Montana, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International,36, 2606A.
15.
Shavelson, R., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455-498.
16.
Skrtic, T.M., Knowlton, H.E., & Clark, F.L. (1979). Action vs. reaction: A curriculum development approach to inservice education. Focus onExceptional Children , 11(1), 1-16.
17.
Smith, J., & Siantz, J. (1978). Inservice for educators: Second thoughts from four sources. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded , 13, 247-252.
18.
Wilson, M.L. (1974). Inseruice education needs of teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 093896).
