An Analysis of Content Elimination and Strategies Used by Elementary Classroom Teachers in the Curriculum Compacting Process

Abstract

Curriculum compacting is an instructional strategy that can be used by classroom teachers to modify and/or eliminate curriculum material that has already been mastered, or can be mastered in a fraction of the time, by students of above average ability. In this experimental research study, the effects of three increasing levels of treatment on the instructional practices of elementary school teachers as they implemented curriculum compacting are reported. Approximately 470 teachers from 27 school districts across the country participated in this study sponsored by The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT). This article will report: the content areas in which various percentages of curriculum could be compacted; the strategies used by teachers to identify subject matter previously mastered by students; the assessment strategies utilized by teachers to document proficiency of curriculum material; and the nature and type of replacement strategies teachers used after curriculum was compacted. Results suggest that elementary teachers are able to eliminate between 24–70% of the curriculum across content areas for more capable students. It was also clear from the results that classroom teachers need considerable assistance to design challenging and rigorous replacement activities.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altbach

Kelly

Petrie

Weis

(1991). Textbooks in American society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Archambault

Westberg

Brown

Hallmark

Zhang

Emmons

(in press). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted.

Bernstein

(1985). The new politics of textbook adoption. Phi Deita Kappan, 66 (7), 463–466.

Betts

(1986). The autonomous learner model. In Renzulli

(Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 27–56). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Chall

(1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chall

(1983). Learning to read: The great debate (updated ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Chall

Conrad

(1991). Should textbooks challenge students? The case for easier or harder textbooks. New York: Teachers College Press.

Clifford

Runions

Smythe

(1986). The learning enrichment service (LES): A participatory model for gifted adolescents. In Renzulli

(Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 92–125). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Feldhusen

Kolloff

(1986). The Purdue three-stage model for gifted education at the elementary level. In Renzulli

(Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 126–152). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

10.

Flanders

(1987). How much of the content in mathematics textbooks is really new? Arithmetic Teacher, 35 (1), 18–23.

11.

Gear

(1976). Accuracy of teacher judgment in identifying gifted children: A review of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 478–90.

12.

Imbeau

(1991). Teachers' attitudes toward curriculum compacting: A comparison of different inservice strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

13.

Kirst

(1982). How to improve schools without spending more money. Phi Delta Kappan, 64 (1), 6–8.

14.

Reis

(1991). The curriculum compactor assessment form. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

15.

Reis

Burns

Renzulli

(1991). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

16.

Reis

Westberg

(in preparation). The impact of staff development of teachers' ability to modify curriculum for gifted and talented students. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented

17.

Renzulli

Reis

(1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

18.

Renzulli

Smith

(1978). The compactor. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

19.

Renzulli

Smith

Reis

(1982). Curriculum compacting: An essential strategy for working with gifted students. The Elementary School Teacher, 82 (3), 185–194.

20.

Starko

(1986). It's about time: Inservice strategies for curriculum compacting. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

21.

Tannenbaum

(1986). The enrichment matrix model. In Renzulli

(Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 391–429). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

22.

Taylor

Frye

(1988). Pretesting: Minimizing time spent on skill work for intermediate readers. The Reading Teacher, 42 (2), 100–104.

23.

Treffinger

(1986). Fostering effective, independent learning through individualized programming. In Renzulli

(Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 429–460). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

24.

Van Tassel-Baska

(1985). Appropriate curriculum for the gifted. In Feldhusen

(Ed.), Toward excellence in gifted education. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

25.

Westberg

Archambault

Dobyns

Salvin

(in press). The classroom practices observation study, journal for the Education of the Gifted.

26.

Usiskin

(1987). Why elementary algebra can, should and must be an eighth-grade course for average students. Mathematics Teacher, 80 (6), 428–438.