Program evaluations conducted by district staff for the purpose of providing feedback to local decision makers are necessary for program improvement and accountability (Fetterman, 1993) can facilitate the creation of longitudinal data bases on the outcomes of gifted and talented programs. This research and development project was undertaken to design, implement, and evaluate a year-long staff development program to improve the evaluation skills of the participants. The Purdue Three-Stage Model (Feldhusen & Kolloff, 1978; Moon, 1994) was used as the theoretical framework for the training program developed. Results suggest that the self-evaluation training was effective in helping coordinators become more skilled program evaluators. Implications of the project for program evaluation, training of program administrators, and longitudinal research on the outcomes of gifted and talented programs are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Borg, W.R., Gall, J.P., & Gall, M.D. (1993). Applying educational research: A practical guide . New York: Longman.
2.
Callahan, C.M., & Caldwell, M.S. (1984). Using evaluation results to improve programs for the gifted and talented. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 7, 60-75.
3.
Callahan, C.M., & Caldwell, M.S. (1993). Establishment of a national data bank on identification and evaluation instruments. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 201-219.
4.
Carter, K.R. (1991). Evaluation of gifted programs. In N. D. Buchanan & J. F. Feldhusen (Eds.), Conducting research and evaluation in gifted education: A handbook of methods (pp. 245-275). New York: Teachers College Press.
5.
Chronbach, L.J. (1963). Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers College Record, 63, 672-83.
6.
Dettmer, P. (1986). Characteristics and needs of adult learners in gifted program inservice and staff development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 131-134.
7.
Feldhusen, J.F. (1980). The Three-Stage Model of Course Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications .
8.
Feldhusen, J.F. (1991). Effects of programs for the gifted: A search for the evidence. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.), The academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 133-147). New York: Teachers College Press.
9.
Feldhusen, J.F., & Kolloff, P.B. (1978). A Three-Stage Model for gifted education. GiftedChild Today, May/June, 15-18.
10.
Feldhusen, J.F., & Kolloff, P.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.
11.
Feldhusen, J.F., Linden, K.W., & Ames, R. (1975). Using instructional theory and educational technology in designing college courses. NSPINewsletter, 12, 1-6.
12.
Fetterman, D.M. (1993). Evaluate yourself. Monograph in the Research-Based Decision Making SeriesStorrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
13.
Goetz, J.P., & LeCompte, M.D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego: Academic Press.
14.
Hunsaker, S., & Callahan, C. (1993). Evaluation of gifted programs: Current practices . Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 190-200.
15.
King, J.A., & Lonquist, M.P. (1995, April). A review of writing on action research. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
16.
Kolloff, P.B., & Feldhusen, J.F. (1981). PACE (Program for Academic and Creative Enrichment): An application of the Purdue Three-Stage Model. GiftedChild Today, 18, 47-50.
17.
Moon, S.M. (1994). Using the Purdue Three-Stage Model to develop talent at the secondary level. The Journal of Secondary GiftedEducation, 5, 31-25.
Olenchak, F.R., & Castle, C. (1995, November). Reliable and valid attitude assessment in gifted education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Tampa, FL.
20.
Renzulli, J.S. (1975). A guidebook for evaluating programs for the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented.
21.
Renzulli, J.S., Gubbins, E.J., & Reid, B.D. (1992). Setting an agenda: Research priorities for the gifted and talented through the year 2000. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
22.
Robinson, A. (1991). Tests in perspective: The role and selection of standardized instruments in the evaluation of programs for the gifted. In N. K. Buchanan & J. F. Feldhusen (Eds.), Conducting research and evaluation in gifted education (pp. 311-332). New York: Teachers College Press.
23.
Schwartz, J., & Taylor, E.L. (1995, November). Accountability in gifted education: Indicators of success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Tampa, FL.
24.
Shore, B.M., Cornell, D.G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V.S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education. New York: Teachers College.
25.
Stufflebeam, D.L. (1966). A depth study of evaluation requirement. Theory into Practice, 5, 121-34.
26.
Stufflebeam, D.L., & Webster, W.J. (1993). An analysis of alternative approaches to evaluation . In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 23-43). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff .
27.
Tomlinson C. & Callahan. C. (1993). A planning guide for evaluating programs for gifted learners. Quest, 4(2), 1-4.
28.
Van Tassel, J. (1980). Evaluation of gifted programs. J. B. Jordan & J. A. Gross (1980). An administrator's handbook on designing programs for the gifted and talented. Virginia : ERIC.
