In this study, three levels of staff development were provided to elementary teachers to train them in a technique called curriculum compacting. Teachers in 20 school districts across the country were randomly assigned by district to one of three treatment groups that received different levels of staff development. After receiving training in curriculum compacting (a procedure that enables teachers to eliminate previously mastered curriculum and substitute more challenging alternatives), teachers were able to eliminate between 42% and 54% of the content for the high-ability students they selected. Teachers in Treatment Group 3, who received the most intensive staff development, completed the highest rated compactor forms. The majority of the teachers in the study were enthusiastic about the process of modifying curriculum for high-ability students, reinforcing Guskey's (1986) model of the process of teacher change.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Archambault, F.X., Westberg, K.L., Brown, S., Hallmark, B.W., Zhang. W., & Emmons. C. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Findings from the classroom practices survey. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 103-119.
2.
Betts, G.T. (1986). The autonomous learner model. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 27-56). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
3.
Clifford, J.A., Runions, T., & Smythe, E. (1986). The learning enrichment service (LES): A participatory model for gifted adolescents. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 92-125). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
4.
Cuban, L. (1982). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1980. New York: Longman.
5.
Educational Products information Exchange Institute (EPIE). (1980-1981). Educational research and development report, 3(4).
6.
Farr, R., & Tulley, M. (1985). Do adoption committees perpetuate mediocre textbooks?Phi Delta Kappan,66, 467-471.
7.
Feldhusen, J.F. & Kolloff, M.B. (1986). The Purdue three-stage enrichment model for gifted education at the elementary level. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 126 152). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
8.
Flanders, J.R. (1987). How much of the content in mathematics textbooks is new?Arithmetic Teacher, 35, 18-23.
9.
Goodlad, J. (1983). A study of schooling: Some findings and hypotheses . Phi Delta Kappan,64, 465-470.
10.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future . New York: McGraw Hill.
11.
Good, T.I., & Brophy, J.E. (1987). Looking in classrooms (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
12.
Guskey, T.R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change . Educational Researcher, 15, 5-12.
Guskey, T.R., & Sparks, D. (1991). What to consider when evaluating staff development . Educational Leadership, 49(3), 73-76.
15.
Imbeau, M.B. (1991). Teacher attitudes toward curriculum compacting: A comparison of different inseruice strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. TheUniversity of Connecticut, Storrs.
16.
Joyce, B., & Showers. B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40(1). 4-10.
17.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1983). Power in staff development through research in training. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
18.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1987). Student achievement through staff development . New York: Longman.
19.
Kirst, M.W. (1982). How to improve schools without spending more money . Phi Delta Kappan,64, 6-8.
20.
Knowles, M.S. (1978). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston. TX: Gulf Publishing.
21.
Kolb. D.A. (1976). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22.
Kulik. J.A., & Kulik. C.I., (1984). Synthesis of research on effects of accelerated instruction. Educational Leadership.42(2), 84-90.
23.
Oakes. J. & Lipton. M. (1992). Detracking schools: Early lessons from the field . Phi Delta Kappan, 73. 448-454.
24.
Reed. S.E. (1987). Effects of curriculum compacting on student attitudes in reading. Unpublished specialist's thesis, College of St. Thomas. St. Paul, MN.
25.
Reis, S.M., Burns. D.E., & Renzulli, J.S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high-ability students . Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
26.
Reis, S.M., & Purcell. J.H. (1993). An analysis of content elimination and strategies used by elementary classroom teachers and the curriculum compacting process . Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 147-170.
27.
Reis, S.M., Westberg. K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hebert. T., Purcell, J.H., Rogers, J., Smist, J., & Plucker, J. (1993). Why not let high-ability students start school in January? Technical report on the curriculum compacting studyStorrs. CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
28.
Renzulli, J.S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
29.
Renzulli, J.S., & Reis, S.M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
30.
Renzulli, J.S., & Reis, S.M. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 26-35. Renzulli. J.S., & Smith, L.H. (1978). The compactor. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
31.
Renzulli, J.S., Smith, L.H., & Reis, S.M. (1982). Curriculum compacting: An essential strategy for working with gifted students. The Elementary School Journal , 82(3), 185-194.
32.
Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework for future study and a state-of-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45(1), 77-87.
33.
Slavin, R.E. (1984). Meta-analysis in education: How has it been used ? Educational Researcher, 13(8), 24-27.
34.
Slavin, R.E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15(9), 5-11.
35.
Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., & Madden, N.A. (1989). Effective programs for students at risk. Needham Heights. MA: Allyn and Bacon.
36.
Sparks, G.M. (1986). The effectiveness of alternative training activities in changing teacher practices. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 217-225.
37.
Starko, A.J. (1986). It is about time: Inservice strategies for curriculum compacting. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press .
38.
Steen. L.A. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39.
Taylor, B.M., & Frye, B.J. (1988). Pretesting: Minimizing time spent on skill work of intermediated readers. The Reading Teacher, 47(2). 100-103.
40.
Tannenbaum, A.J. (1986). The enrichment matrix model. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 126-152). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
41.
Treffinger, D.J. (1986). Fostering effective, independent learning through individualized programming. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for deueloping programs for the gifted and talented (pp 429-460). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
42.
Tyson-Bernstein, H., & Woodward, A. (1989). Nineteenth-century policies for 21st-century practice: The textbook reform dilemma. Educational Policy, 3(2). 95-106.
43.
Usiskin, Z. (1987). Why elementary algebra can, should. and must be an eighth-grade course for average students. Mathematics Teacher . 80, 428-438.
44.
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1985). Appropriate curriculum for the gifted. In J. Feldhusen (Ed.), Toward excellence in gifted education (pp. 175-189). Denver, CO: Love.
45.
Westberg, K.L.Archambault. F.X., Dobyns, S.M., & Salvin, T.J. (1993). An observational study of classroom practices used with third-and fourth-grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted.16, 120-146.
