This evaluation study of a curriculum innovation provides a close-up view of two school sites after 3 years of implementing the William and Mary curriculum units. Case study methodology was employed by using multiple data sources, including interview, focus group, document-content analysis, and classroom observation to assess contextual perceptions of impact and institutionalization of the innovation. Findings suggested that the innovation was viewed positively by relevant groups, that the innovation had been integrated into district policies, and that within-system diffusion efforts were underway. However, full implementation of the innovation was hampered by lack of use of the performance-based assessment tasks for improving instruction and for reporting student-learning gains. The study concluded that 3 years of implementation may be insufficient for an innovation to impact the total school culture.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AveryL. D.VanTassel-BaskaJ.O'NeillB. (1997). Making evaluation work: One school district's experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 124–132.
2.
BenbowC. P. (1998). Grouping intellectually advanced students for instruction. In VanTassel-BaskaJ. (Ed.), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed., pp. 261–278). Denver, CO: Love.
3.
BogdanR. C.BiklenS. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
CallahanC. M. (1996). A critical self-study of gifted education: Healthy practice, necessary evil, or sedition?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 148–163.
5.
CaweltiG. (1995). High school restructuring: What are the critical elements?NAASP Bulletin, 79(569), 1–15.
6.
Center for Gifted Education. (1998). Autobiographies: A language arts unit for high-ability learners. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
7.
Center for Gifted Education. (1997) Electricity City: A problem-based unit. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
8.
CohenD. K.SpillaneJ. P. (1993). Policy and practice: The relationship between governance and instruction. In FuhrmanS. H. (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy (pp. 35–95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
CreswellJ. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10.
DenzinN. (1970). The research act. Chicago: Aldine.
11.
FowlerM. (1990). The diet cola test. Science Scope, 13(4), 32–34.
12.
FullenM. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
KulikJ. A.KulikC. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73–77.
14.
McLaughlinM. L.ShepardL. A. (1995). Improving education through standards based reform. Stanford, CA: A Report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Education Reform.
15.
PhillipsM. (1997). What makes school effective? A comparison of the relationships of communitarian climate and academic climate to mathematics achievement and attendance during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 633–662.
16.
ShieldsP. M.KnappM. S. (1997). The promise and limits of school based reform: A national snapshot. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 288–294.
17.
StakeR. (1975). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. Kalamazoo, MI: Evaluation Center, College of Education, Western Michigan University.
18.
StakeR. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
TomlinsonC. A.CallahanC. M. (1992). Contributions of gifted education to general education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 183–189.
20.
United States Department of Education, National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: An imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.
21.
United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1990). Accelerating academic achievement: A summary of findings from 20 years of NAEP. Washington, DC: Author.
22.
United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: Author.
23.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (1992). Educational decision making in acceleration and grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 68–72.
24.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (1995). The development of talent through curriculum. Roeper Review, 18, 98–102.
25.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.AveryL. D.HallD. (1997). Focus on the future: An evaluation of Ohio gifted programs, Vol. I. Unpublished manuscript, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
26.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BassG.RiesR.PolandD.AveryL. (1998). A national pilot study of science curriculum effectiveness for high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200–211.
27.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.Hammett-HallK.BaileyJ. M. (1996). Case studies of promising change schools. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 19, 89–116.
28.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.JohnsonD. T.HughesC. E.BoyceL. N. (1996). A study of language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 461–480.
29.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF. X.DobynsS. M.SalvanT. J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120–146.
30.
YinR. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
