Unified Program Design: Organizing Existing Programming Models,Delivery Options,and Curriculum

Abstract

A persistent problem in the field of gifted education has been the lack of categorization and delineation of gifted programming options. To address this issue, we propose Unified Program Design as a structural framework for gifted program models. This framework defines gifted programs as the combination of delivery methods and curriculum models. By considering both the delivery methods and the curriculum, coordinators and teachers will be able to visualize the available options that address each component, making designing and describing gifted programs more consistent. Implications for research, evaluation, and program practice are also discussed.

Keywords

gifted program curriculum delivery models design

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams-Byers

Whitsell

S. S.

Moon

S. M.

(2004). Gifted students’ perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 7-20.

Adelson

J. L.

McCoach

D. B.

Gavin

M. K.

(2012). Examining the effects of gifted programming in mathematics and reading using the ECLS-K. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 1-15. doi:10.1177/0016986211431487

Archambault

F. X.

Jr. Westberg

K. L.

Brown

Hallmark

B. W.

Emmons

Zhang

(1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (Research Monograph 93102). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Azano

Missett

T. C.

Callahan

C. M.

Brunner

Foster

Moon

T. R.

(2011). Exploring the relationship between fidelity of implementation and academic advancement in a third-grade gifted curriculum: A mixed methods study. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 693-719.

Bangel

N. J.

Moon

S. M.

Capobianco

B. M.

(2010). Preservice teachers’ perceptions and experiences in a gifted education training model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 209-221. doi:10.1177/0016986210369257

Betts

G. T.

(1985). Autonomous learner model for the gifted and talented. Greeley, CO: Autonomous Learning Publications and Specialists.

Betts

G. T.

Kercher

J. J.

(2009). The autonomous learner model for the gifted and talented. In Renzulli

J. S.

Gubbins

E. J.

McMillen

K. S.

Eckert

R. D.

Little

C. A.

(Eds.), Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 235-252). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Bisland

(2001). Mentoring: An educational alternative for gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 24(4), 22-64.

Brown

E. F.

Stambaugh

T. L

. (2014). Placement of students who are gifted. In Bakken

J. P.

Obiakor

F. E.

Rotatori

A. F.

(Eds.), Advances in Special Education. Vol. 26: Gifted education: Current perspectives and issues (pp. 41-69). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

10.

Callahan

C. M.

Kyburg

R. M.

(2005). Talented and gifted youth. In DuBois

D. L.

Karcher

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 424-439). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Callahan

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

(2013). National survey of K-12 gifted program. Washington, DC: Institute on Education Science, U.S. Department of Education.

12.

Cross

T. L.

Stewart

R. A.

Coleman

L. J.

(2003). Phenomenology and its implications for gifted studies research: Investigating the Lebenswelt of academically gifted students attending an elementary magnet school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 201-220.

13.

Davis

G. A.

Rimm

S. B.

Siegle

D. B.

(2010). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

14.

Delcourt

M. A. B.

Cornell

D. G.

Goldberg

M. D

. (2007). Cognitive and affective learning outcomes of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 359-381. doi:10.1177/0016986207306320

15.

Eckert

R. D.

Robins

J. H.

(2016). Designing services and programs for high ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

16.

Feng

A. X.

VanTassel-Baska

Quek

Bai

O’Neill

(2005). A longitudinal assessment of gifted students’ learning using the integrated curriculum model (ICM): Impacts and perceptions of the William and Mary language arts and science curriculum. Roeper Review, 27, 78-83.

17.

Firmender

J. M.

Reis

S. M.

Sweeny

S. M.

(2013). Reading comprehension and fluency levels ranges across diverse classrooms: The need for differentiated instruction and content. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 3-17.

18.

Gallagher

J. J.

(2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 5-12. doi:10.1177/001698620004400102

19.

Gavin

M. K.

Casa

T. M.

Adelson

J. L.

Carroll

S. R.

Sheffield

L. J.

Spinelli

A. M.

(2007). Project M3: Mentoring mathematical minds—A research-based curriculum for talented elementary students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 566-585.

20.

Gibbons

F. X.

Benbow

C. P.

Gerrard

(1994). From top dog to bottom half: Social comparison strategies in response to poor performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 638-652.

21.

Hockett

J. A.

(2009). Curriculum for highly able learners that conforms to general education and gifted education quality indicators. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32, 394-440.

22.

Kaplan

S. N.

(2009). The grid model: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In Renzulli

J. S.

Gubbins

E. J.

McMillen

K. S.

Eckert

R. D.

Little

C. A.

(Eds.), Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 235-252). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

23.

Kim

(2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 1-15. doi:10.1177/0016986216630607

24.

Kulik

J. A.

Kulik

C. C.

(1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.

25.

Linn-Cohen

Hertzog

N. B.

(2007). Unlocking the GATE to differentiation: A qualitative study of two self-contained gifted classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 227-259.

26.

Little

C. A.

Kearney

K. L.

Britner

P. A.

(2010). Students’ self-concept and perceptions of mentoring relationships in a summer mentorship program for talented adolescents. Roeper Review, 32, 189-199. doi:10.1080/02783193.2010.485307

27.

Mann

M. L.

Gentry

(2008). Total school cluster grouping and differentiation: A comprehensive, research-based plan for raising student achievement and improving teacher practices. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

28.

Matthews

M. S.

Ritchotte

J. A.

McBee

M. T.

(2013). Effects of schoolwide cluster grouping and within-class ability grouping on elementary school students’ academic achievement growth. High Ability Studies, 24(2), 81-97. doi:10.1080/13598139.2013.846251

29.

Melser

N. A.

(1999). Gifted students and cooperative learning: A study of grouping strategies. Roeper Review, 21, 315.

30.

Moon

S. M.

(2004). Using the Purdue three-stage model to develop talent in science and technology. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 14(3), 19-40.

31.

Moon

T. R.

Tomlinson

C. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(1995). Academic diversity in the middle school: Results of a national survey of middle school administrators and teachers (Research Monograph 95124). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

32.

Olenchak

F. R.

(2009). Effects of talented unlimited counseling on gifted/learning disabled students. Gifted Education International, 25, 144-164. doi:10.1177/026142940902500205

33.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Lee

(2004). Gifted adolescents’ talent development through distance learning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 7-35. doi:10.1177/016235320402800102

34.

Pleiss

M. K.

Feldhusen

J. F.

(1995). Mentors, role models, and heroes in the lives of gifted children. Educational Psychologist, 30, 159-169.

35.

Reis

S. M.

Eckert

R. D.

McCoach

D. B.

Jacobs

J. K.

Coyne

(2008). Using enrichment reading practices to increase reading fluency, comprehension, and attitudes. The Journal of Educational Research, 101, 299-314.

36.

Reis

S. M.

Gubbins

E. J.

Briggs

Schreiber

F. R.

Richards

Jacobs

(2004). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few opportunities for continuous progress. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 309-338.

37.

Renzulli

J. S.

Gubbins

E. J.

McMillen

K. S.

Eckert

R. D.

Little

C. A.

(Eds.). (2009). Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted & talented (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

38.

Renzulli

J. S.

Leppien

J. H.

Hays

T. S.

(2000). The multiple menu model: A practical guide for developing differentiated curriculum. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

39.

Renzulli

J. S.

Reis

S. M.

(1997). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.

40.

Rogers

K. B.

(2002). Re-forming gifted education: How parents and teachers can match the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

41.

Rogers

K. B.

(2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382-396. doi:10.1177/0016986207306324

42.

Schlichter

C. L.

(1986). Talents unlimited: An inservice education model for teaching thinking skills. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 119-123. doi:10.1177/001698628603000305

43.

Tomlinson

C. A.

Kaplan

S. A.

Purcell

J. H.

Leppien

J. H.

Burns

D. E.

Strickland

C. A.

(2005). The parallel curriculum in the classroom: Book 2—Units for application across the content areas k-12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

44.

Tomlinson

C. A.

Kaplan

S. N.

Renzulli

J. S.

Purcell

J. H.

Leppien

J. H.

Burns

D. E.

. . . Imbeau

M. B.

(2009). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop learner potential and challenge advanced learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

45.

Treffinger

D. J.

Selby

E. C.

(2009). Levels of service: A contemporary approach to programming for talent development. In Renzulli

J. S.

Gubbins

E. J.

McMillen

K. S.

Eckert

R. D.

Little

C. A.

(Eds.), Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted & talented (pp. 235-252). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

46.

van der Meulen

Bruggen

Spilt

Verouden

Berkhout

Bögels

. (2014). The pullout program day a week school for gifted children: Effects on social-emotional and academic functioning. Child & Youth Care Forum, 43, 287-314. doi:10.1007/s10566-013-9239-5

47.

VanTassel-Baska

(2005). Gifted programs and services: What are the nonnegotiables? Theory Into Practice, 44, 90-97.

48.

VanTassel-Baska

Brown

E. F.

(2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 342-358. doi:10.1177/0016986207306323

49.

VanTassel-Baska

Stambaugh

(2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44, 211-217.

50.

Veenman

(1995). Cognitive and non-cognitive effects of multigrade and multiage classrooms: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 319-381.

51.

Westberg

K. L.

Archambault

F. X.

Jr. Brown

S. W.

(1997). A survey of classroom practices with third and fourth grade students in the United States. Gifted Education International, 12, 29-33. doi:10.1177/026142949701200106

52.

Westberg

K. L.

Archambault

F. X.

Jr. Dobyns

S. M.

Salvin

T. J.

(1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120-146. doi:10.1177/016235329301600204

53.

Westberg

K. L.

Daoust

M. E.

(2003). The results of the replication of the classroom practices survey replication in two states. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, pp. 3-8.

54.

Winebrenner

Brulles

(2008). The cluster grouping handbook: How to challenge gifted students and improve achievement for all. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.

55.

Yang

Gentry

Choi

Y. O.

(2012). Gifted students’ perceptions of the regular classes and pull-out programs in South Korea. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 270-287. doi:10.1177/1932202X12451021