It is the purpose of this paper to identify some of the pertinent issues involved in evaluating gifted programmes. To be more effective, the context of this paper will be set in the gifted programme delivered by the Peel District Board of Education in Ontario, Canada. Peel is Canada's largest public school board with some 110,000 students. A prospective evaluator of such a programme would have to know how well their method is working and in light of the evaluation, look at other programme options as a point of interest. However, it is not the intent of this paper to be an evaluation of the aforementioned programme. It is at best an outline of the thought process an evaluator would undertake prior to planning an evaluation of the programme.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AliA.S. (1999). An Examination of the Selection Procedure for Gifted Programmes in a District Board of Education. Unpublished manuscript Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.
2.
AlvikT. (1995). School-based evaluation: a close-up. Studies in Educational Evaluation21, 311–343.
3.
CallahanC.M. (1983). Issues in evaluating programs for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly27, 13–7.
4.
CallahanC.M. (1986). Asking the right questions: The central issue in evaluating programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly30, 1, 38–42.
5.
ClarkB. (1992). Growing up gifted. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.
6.
CronbachL.J. (1963). Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers College Record64, 672–683.
FeldhusenJ.F.KolloffM.B. (1978). A three-staged model for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, Jan/Feb, re-printed in Jan/Feb (1988), 14–18.
11.
FeldhusenJ.F.VaughnV.L.AsherJ.W. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly35, 2, 92–98.
12.
FerbezerI. (1998). Validity and reliability of teacher's judgement in identification and follow-up of gifted pupils. Gifted Education International39, 110–114.
13.
MarlandS. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the Commission of Education. Washington, D.C: US Government Printing Office.
14.
MaudausG.F.ScrivenM.S.StufflebeamD.L. (1983). Program evaluation a historic view. Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Service Evaluation. MaudausGeorge F.ScrivenMichael S.StufflebeamDaniel L., eds. Boston: Kluwer-Nijof, 3–22.
15.
McGrailL. (1998). Modifying regular classroom curricula for high ability students. Gifted Child Today. March/April, 36–39.
16.
MoltzenR. (1998). Maximizing the potential of the gifted child in the regular classroom: A professional development issue. Gifted Education International1336–45.
17.
MoonS.M.FeldhusenJ.F.DillonD.R. (1994). Long-term effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model. Gifted Quarterly38, 1, 38–48.
18.
MoonS.M.FeldhusenJ.F.KellyK.W. (1991). Identification procedures: Bridging theory and practice. Gifted Child Today, Jan./Feb.,30–36.
19.
Peel District Board of Education. (1985). In-School Learning Teachers Handbook.
20.
PophamW.J. (1993). Educational Evaluation3rd Ed. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon, 1993.
21.
RenzulliJ.S. (1975). Working Draft: A Guidebook for Evaluating Programs for the Gifted and Talented. Ventura, California: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools.
22.
RenzulliJ.S. (1977). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60. 180–184, 261
23.
RenzulliJ.S.ReisS.M. (1986). The enrichment triad/revolving door model: A school-wide plan for the development of creative productivity. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.) Systems and Models for Developing Programs for the Gifted and Talented (pp. 216–266). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
24.
ScrivenM. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In StakeR.E. (Ed.), Curriculum Evaluation(American Educational Research Association monograph series on evaluation, No. 1). Chicago: Rand McNally.
25.
StakeR.E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 523–540.
26.
StufflebeamD.L. (1968). Evaluation as Enlightenment for Decision-Making. Colubus, OH: Evaluation Center, Ohio State University.
27.
StufflebeamD.L. (1983). The CIPP Model for program evaluation. Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Service Evaluation. MaudausGeorge F.ScrivenMichael S.StufflebeamDaniel L. eds. Boston: Kluwer-Nijof, 117–142.
28.
StufflebeamD.L.WebsterW.J. (1983). An analysis of alternative approaches to education. Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Service Evaluation. MaudausGeorge F.ScrivenMichael S.StufflebeamDaniel L., eds. Boston: Kluwer-Nijof, 23–44.
29.
WorthenB.R. (1993). Measurement and Evaluation in the Schools. New York: Longman.
30.
YavorskyD.K. (1984). Discrepancy Evaluation: A Practitioner's Guide. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia, Curry School of Education evaluation Research Center.
