When well-considered and grounded in current knowledge, program evaluations of services to gifted learners can be a powerful tool for increasing practitioners’ knowledge and self-efficacy, and for effecting positive programmatic changes. The Arkansas Evaluation Initiative (AEI) in Gifted Education, a Jacob K. Javits-funded project, was implemented statewide to improve the quality of gifted program evaluations. The AEI focused on improving services, especially for underrepresented groups of students, by building statewide capacity in local districts to conduct formative program evaluations. Results indicate that practitioner knowledge of program evaluation increased. Attitudinal data also indicate that gifted education practitioners are interested in learning more about program evaluation, but are moderately concerned about the time, logistics, resources, and their skill in facilitating changes needed to improve formative program evaluations in their schools. Finally, the intervention resulted in improved documentation of programs and services with respect to underserved groups, stakeholder involvement, and student outcome data.
AdamsC.CotabishA.RicciM. K. (2013). Using the next generation science standards with advanced and gifted Learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
2.
AdkinsK. K.WoodB. K. (2002). A preliminary study of Arkansas gifted evaluation reports and their alignment with the Pre-K-Grade 12 Program Standards of the National Association for Gifted Child. Little Rock, AR: Center for Gifted Education.
3.
Arkansas State Department of Education. (1999). Gifted and talented rules and regulations: Program approval standards. Retrieved from Eric Database. (ED436066)
AveryL. D.VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2001). Investigating the impact of gifted education evaluation at state and local levels: Problems with traction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 153-176.
6.
AveryL. D.VanTassel-BaskaJ.O’NeillB. (1997). Making evaluation work: One school district’s experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 124-131. doi:10.1177/001698629704100402
7.
CallahanC. M. (2000). Evaluation as a critical component of program development and implementation. In HellerK. A.MonksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 537-547). New York, NY: Elsevier.
8.
CallahanC. M. (2009). Evaluation for decision-making: The practitioner’s guide to program evaluation. In RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsE. J.LittleK. (Eds.), Systems and models in gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 119-141). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
9.
CallahanC. M.TomlinsonC. A.HunsakerS. L.BlandL. C.MoonT. (1995). Instruments and evaluation designs used in gifted programs evaluations [Research Monograph 95132]. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
10.
CarterK. R. (1986). A cognitive outcomes study to evaluate curriculum for the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 41-55.
11.
CarterK. R. (1992). A model for evaluating programs for the gifted under non-experimental conditions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 266-283.
12.
CarterK. R.HamiltonW. (1985). Formative evaluation of gifted programs: A process and model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 5-11. doi:10.1177/001698628502900101
13.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
CotabishA.RobinsonA. (2012). The effects of peer coaching on the evaluation knowledge, skills of gifted program administrators. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 160-170. doi:10.1177/0016986212446861
15.
ColemanL. J.CrossT. L. (1993). Relationships between programming practices and outcomes in a summer residential school for gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 420-441.
16.
DettmerP. (1985). Gifted program scope, structure, and evaluation. Roeper Review, 7, 146-152. doi:10.1080/02783198509552878
17.
FarrelB. G. (1992). Lessen plan analysis as a program evaluation tool. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 23-26.
18.
FraenkelJ. R.WallenN. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
19.
GallagherJ. J. (1998). National agenda for education of gifted students: Statement of priorities. Exceptional Children, 55, 107-441.
20.
HallG. E.GeorgeA.RutherfordW. (1986). Measuring stages of concern about innovation: A manual for use of the SoC Questionnaire (Rev. ed.). Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
21.
HallG. E.NewloveB. W.GeorgeA. A.RutherfordW. L.HordS. M. (1991). Measuring change facilitators stages of concern: A manual for the use of the CFSoCQ Questionnaire. Greeley: Center for Research on Teaching and Learning, University of Northern Colorado.
22.
HallG. E.WallaceR. C.Jr.DossettW. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption of process within education institutions (Report No. 3006). Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 095126)
23.
HouseE. R. (2001). Responsive evaluation (and its influence on deliberative democratic evaluation). New Directions for Evaluation, 92, 23-30.
24.
HouseE. R.LappanS. (1994). Evaluation of programs for disadvantaged gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 441-466. doi:10.1177/001698629704100402
25.
HunsakerS. L. (2000). Documenting gifted program results for key decision makers. Roeper Review, 23, 80-82. doi:10.1080/02783190009554070
26.
HunsakerS. L.CallahanC. M. (1993). Evaluation of gifted programs: Current practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 190-200. doi:10.1177/016235329301600207
27.
JohnsenS. K. (2000).What the research says about accountability and program evaluation. Tempo, 20(4), 23-30.
28.
JohnsenS. K.SheffieldL. J. (Eds.). (2013). Using the common core state standards for mathematics with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
29.
LandrumM. S.ShakleeB. (Eds.). (2000). Pre-K-grade 12 gifted program standards [Brochure]. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
30.
LapanS. D. (1989). Guidelines for developing and evaluating gifted programs. Roeper Review, 11, 167-169. doi:10.1080/02783198909553197
31.
MatthewsM.ShaunessyE. (2010). Putting the standards into practice: Evaluating the utility of the NAGC Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 159-167. doi:10.1177/0016986209356708
32.
MillerK. E.NiemiK. A. (2001). Gifted and talented: Fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students’ evaluations of a gifted program. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 156, 167-174. doi:10.1080/00221325.1995.9914814
33.
MoonS. M. (1996). Using the Purdue Three-Stage Model to facilitate local program evaluation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 121-128. doi:10.1177/001698629604000302
34.
MoonS. M.FeldhusenJ. F.DillonD. R. (1994). Long term effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 38-48. doi:10.1177/001698629403800106
35.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). NAGC pre-K-grade 12 gifted programming standards: A blueprint for quality gifted education programs. Washington, DC: Author.
36.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.ClarenbachJ. (2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high achievement of low-income, high-ability students. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
PaulK. A. (2010). A national study of state policy for fostering gifted program evaluation: Content analysis and recommendations for policy development (Doctoral dissertation) (Paper AAI3464370). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI3464370
PowersD. (2000). Computing reader agreement for the GRE writing assessment [Memorandum]. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
41.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 26-35. doi:10.1177/001698629103500104
42.
RobinsonA.CotabishA.O’TuelF.WoodB. (2005, April). Developing a statewide initiative in gifted education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
43.
RobinsonA.CotabishA.WoodB. K.BiggersA. (2009). The Arkansas evaluation initiative in gifted education. In RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsE. J.LittleK. (Eds.), Systems and models in gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 413-432). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
44.
RobinsonA.DaileyD. (2014). Effective practices and the development of talent in schools and classrooms. In BakkenJ. P.ObiakorF. E.RotatoriA. F. (Eds.), Gifted education: Current perspectives and issues (Advances in Special Education, Vol. 26, pp. 167-190). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
45.
RobinsonA.ShoreB. M.EnersenD. X. (2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
46.
RobinsonA.StanleyT. D. (1989). Teaching to talent: Evaluating an enriched and accelerated mathematics program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 253-267. doi:10.1177/016235328901200402
47.
RossP. (1993). National excellence: The case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
48.
ShoreB. M.CornellD. G.RobinsonA.WardV. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. doi:10.1177/001698629403800309
49.
TomlinsonC.BlandL.MoonT. (1993). Evaluation utilization: A review of the literature with implication for gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 171-189. doi:10.1177/016235329301600206
50.
TomlinsonC.BlandL.MoonT.CallahanC. (1994). Case studies of evaluation utilization in gifted education. Evaluation Practice, 15, 153-168.
51.
TomlinsonC.CallahanC. M. (1994). Planning effective evaluations for programs for the gifted. Roeper Review, 17, 46-51. doi:10.1080/02783199409553617
52.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (April, 2003). Meta-findings on the utilization of evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
53.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2004a). Metaevaluation findings: A call for gifted program quality. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA. X. (Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement (pp. 227-245). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
54.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2004b). The processes in gifted program evaluation. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA. X. (Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement (pp. 23-39). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
55.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 199-215. doi:10.1177/001698620605000302
56.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (Ed.). (2013). Using the common core state standards for English language arts with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
57.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA. X. (Eds.). (2004). Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
58.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (Eds.). (2007). Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 484579)
