A lack of efficacy research related to effective practices for gifted students in the general-education setting exists in the literature. Future research efforts in this area need to begin by clearly defining worthwhile effects to study. These worthwhile effects relate to what we want our gifted students to accomplish in both the short and long term. Once these effects are defined, we recommend that researchers identify the important critical attributes of the desired practices, include ways of determining if the practice is actually implemented in the classroom, and use technically adequate measures and procedures to gather data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CallahanC. M.CaldwellM. S. (1995). A practitioner's guide to evaluating programs for the gifted. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
2.
ColemanL. J. (1995). The power of specialized educational environments in the development of giftedness: The need for research on social context. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 171–176.
3.
EllisA.FoutsJ. (1993). Research on educational innovations. Princeton Junction, NJ: Eye on Education.
4.
FettermanD. (1993). Evaluate yourself. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
FriedmanR. C.LeeS. W. (1996). Differentiating instruction for high-achieving/gifted children in regular classrooms: A field test of three gifted-education models. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 405–436.
7.
FullanM.MilesM. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 744–752.
8.
GallagherJ. J. (1994). A retrospective view: The Javits program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 95–96.
9.
GardnerH. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
10.
GoetzJ. P.LeCompteM. D. (1986). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando: Academic Press.
11.
HallG. E.GeorgeA. A.RutherfordW. L. (1986). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
12.
HansenJ. B.LindenK. W. (1990). Selecting instruments for identifying gifted and talented students. Roeper Review, 13(1), 10–15.
13.
HouseE. R.LapanS. (1994). Evaluation of programs for disadvantaged gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 441–466.
14.
JohnsenS. K. (1992). Classroom Instructional Practices Scale. (Unpublished instrument available from author.).
15.
JohnsenS. K.HaenslyP. A.RyserG. R. (1993). Project mustard seed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
16.
KerlingerF. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
17.
KulikJ. A.KulikC. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73–77.
18.
MakerC. J.RogersJ. A.NielsonA. B.BauerleP. R. (1996). Multiple intelligences, problem solving, and diversity in the general classroom. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 437–460.
19.
RogersK. B. (1989). A content analysis of the literature on giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 78–88.
20.
SarasonS. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it is too late!San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
SouthernW. T.JonesE. D. (1991). The academic acceleration of gifted children. New York: Teachers College Press.
22.
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Javits gifted and talented students education program: Grant projects 1992/1993 (OERI Publication No. PIP 99–1223). Washington, DC: Author.
23.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.JohnsonD.T.HughesC.BoyceL. N. (1996). A study of language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 461–480.
