A National Study of Science Curriculum Effectiveness with High Ability Students

Gifted Child Quarterly

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 200-211

  VanTassel Baska, Joyce ^a   Bass, George ^a   Ries, Roger ^a   Poland, Donna ^a   Avery, Linda D ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0009302977     PISSN: 00169862     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/001698629804200404     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Adams, C.M., & Callahan, C.M. (1995). The reliability and validity of a performance task for evaluating science process skills. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(1), 14-20.
2. Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 499-518.
3. Brody, L.E., & Stanley, J.C. (1991). Young college students: Assessing factors that contribute to success. In W.T. Southern & E.D. Jones (Eds.), Academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 102-132). New York: Teachers College Press.
4. Bybee, R.W. (1994). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. New York: Teachers College Press.
5. Fowler, M. (1990). The diet cola test. Science Scope, 13(4), 32-34.
6. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. NY: Basic Books.
7. Goldberg, H., & Wagreich, P. (1989). Evaluation of a model integrated mathematics science program of the elementary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 14(2), 193-214.
8. Hamilton, L.S., Nussbaum, E.M., Kumpermintz, H., Kerhoven, J.I.M., & Snow, R.E. (1995). Enhancing the validity and usefulness of large-scale educational assessments: II. NELS: 88 science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 555-581.
9. Hilton, T.L., Hsia, J., Solorzano, D.G., & Benton, N.L. (1989). Persistence in science of high-ability minority students. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
10. JEFFCO Life Science Program. (1989). [Submission to the Program Effectiveness Panel at the U.S. Department of Education]. Golden, CO: Jefferson County Public Schools.
11. Kelly, P. (1991). Perceptions and performance: An impact assessment of CEPUP in schools. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley, Lawrence Hall of Science, CEPUP.
12. Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73-77.
13. Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J.G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Education Psychology, 78(2), 75-95.
14. Lockwood, A. (1992a). The de facto curriculum? Focus in Change, 6, 8-11.
15. Lockwood, A. (1992b). Whose knowledge do we teach? Focus in Change, 6, 3-7.
16. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. (1994). The study of mathematically precocious youth: The first three decades of a planned 50-year study of intellectual talent. In R. Subotnik and K. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman, contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 255-281). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
17. National Assessment of Educational Progress (1988). Science learning matters. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
18. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
19. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20. National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology. (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
21. Perkins, D., & Saloman, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context bound? Educational Research, 18 (1), 16-25.
22. Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Rutherford, J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
24. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 19(2), 4-14.
25. Shymanski, J.A., Hedges, L.V., & Woodward, G. (1990). A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60's on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 127-144.
26. Shymanski, J.A., Kyle, W.C., & Alport, J.M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387-404.
27. Snow, R.E. (1974). Representative and quasi-representative designs for research on teaching. Review of Educational Research, 44, 265-291.
28. Swiatek, M.A., & Benbow, C.P. (1991). Ten-year longitudinal follow-up of ability-matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 528-538.
29. United States Department of Education (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington, DC: Author.
30. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instructional models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(4), 164-169.
31. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Planning effective curriculum for the gifted. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
32. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1996). The development of talent through curriculum. Roeper Review, 18(2), 98-102.
33. VanTassel-Baska, J., Bailey, J., Gallagher, S., & Fettig, M. (1993). A conceptual overview of science education for high ability learners. Williamsburg, VA: The Center for Gifted Education.
34. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Kulieke, M. (1987). The role of the community in developing scientific talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(3), 115-119.
35. Westberg, K., Archambault, F., Dobyns, S., & Slavin, T. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.