Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Recent research has shown that implementation of innovative programs at the classroom level continues to be a major challenge. The purpose of this study was to examine the types of modifications made during implementation of two curriculum units in two different setting types (i.e., self-contained, pull-out) to identify areas that should be considered when developing curriculum for gifted learners served through various service delivery models. Following two cohorts of third-grade teachers implementing two language arts units, results indicate that teachers made choices to modify the curricula in detrimental ways more often than in productive ways, with pull-out classroom teachers making more negative modifications. Findings of the study suggest that modifying curriculum appears to be inevitable. To utilize research-based curriculum in educational settings, teachers should be provided knowledge about how to modify the curriculum for their setting to not detract from the intended learning goals, as well as understand the essential curricular components that should not be modified.

Keywords

curriculum educational interventions elementary education evidence-based practice gifted learners fidelity of implementation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berkel

Mauricio

A. M.

Schoenfelder

Sandler

I. N.

(2011). Putting the pieces together: An integrated model of program implementation. Prevention Science, 12, 23–33. doi:10.1007/s11121-010-0186-1

Callahan

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

Azano

A. P.

Hailey

(2015). What works in gifted education: Documenting effects of an integrated curricular/Instructional model. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 1–31. doi:10.3102/0002832214549448

Carroll

Patterson

Wood

Booth

Rick

Balain

(2007). Debate: A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2. Retrieved from http://www.implementationscience.com/content/2/1/40

Century

Rudnick

Freeman

(2010). A framework for measuring fidelity of implementation: A foundation for shared language and accumulation of knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 199–218.

Dane

A. V.

Schneider

B. H.

(1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 23–45.

Dobson

Cook

T. J.

(1980). Avoiding type III error in program evaluation: Results from a field experiment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 3, 269–276.

Durlak

J. A.

Dupre

E. P.

(2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350.

Dusenbury

Brannigan

Falco

Hansen

W. B.

(2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18, 237–256.

Greenhalgh

Robert

Macfarlane

Bate

Kyriakidou

Peacock

(2005). Diffusion of innovations in health service organizations: A systematic literature review. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

10.

Harn

Rarisi

Stoolmiller

(2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools? Exceptional Children, 79, 181–193.

11.

Mihalic

(2004). The importance of implementation fidelity. Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth, 4, 83–86.

12.

Moncher

F. J.

Prinz

R. J.

(1991). Treatment fidelity in outcome studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 247–266.

13.

Moon

T. R.

Callahan

C. M.

Hailey

(2012, November). Current status of K–12 gifted programs: A national survey. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association for Gifted Children, Denver, CO.

14.

Odom

S. L.

(2009). The tie that binds: Evidence-based practice, implementation science, and outcomes for children. Topics in Early Education Special Education, 29, 53–61.

15.

O’Donnell

C. L.

(2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33–84.

16.

Ruiz-Primo

M. A.

(2006). A multi-method and multi-source approach for studying fidelity of implementation. Retrieved from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lsi/expert/documents/fidelityofimplementation.pdf

17.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

18.

Yeaton

W. H.

Sechrest

(1981). Critical dimensions in the choice and maintenance of successful treatments: Strength, integrity, and effectiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 156–167.

Fidelity of Intervention of English/Language Arts Elementary Curriculum for Gifted Students

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References