An evaluation of the implementation of curriculum innovation: The impact of the William and Mary units on schools

Journal for the Education of the Gifted

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 244-272

  Vantassel Baska, Joyce ^a,b   Avery, Linda D ^a,b   Little, Catherine ^a,b   Hughes, Claire ^a,b  

^a Department of Education ^*

^b The College of William and Mary   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034350506     PISSN: 01623532     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/016235320002300201     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Avery, L. D., VanTassel-Baska, J., & O'Neill, B. (1997). Making evaluation work: One school district's experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 124-132.
2. Benbow, C. P. (1998). Grouping intellectually advanced students for instruction. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed., pp. 261-278). Denver, CO: Love.
3. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4. Callahan, C. M. (1996). A critical self-study of gifted education: Healthy practice, necessary evil, or sedition? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 148-163.
5. Cawelti, G. (1995). High school restructuring: What are the critical elements? NAASP Bulletin, 79(569), 1-15.
6. Center for Gifted Education. (1998). Autobiographies: A language arts unit for high-ability learners. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
7. Center for Gifted Education. (1997) Electricity City: A problem-based unit. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
8. Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (1993). Policy and practice: The relationship between governance and instruction. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy (pp. 35-95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10. Denzin, N. (1970). The research act. Chicago: Aldine.
11. Fowler, M. (1990). The diet cola test. Science Scope, 13(4), 32-34.
12. Fullen, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
13. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.
14. McLaughlin, M. L., & Shepard, L. A. (1995). Improving education through standards based reform. Stanford, CA: A Report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Education Reform.
15. Phillips, M. (1997). What makes school effective? A comparison of the relationships of communitarian climate and academic climate to mathematics achievement and attendance during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 633-662.
16. Shields, P. M., & Knapp, M. S. (1997). The promise and limits of school based reform: A national snapshot. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 288-294.
17. Stake, R. (1975). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. Kalamazoo, MI: Evaluation Center, College of Education, Western Michigan University.
18. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1992). Contributions of gifted education to general education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 183-189.
20. United States Department of Education, National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: An imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.
21. United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1990). Accelerating academic achievement: A summary of findings from 20 years of NAEP. Washington, DC: Author.
22. United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: Author.
23. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Educational decision making in acceleration and grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 68-72.
24. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1995). The development of talent through curriculum. Roeper Review, 18, 98-102.
25. VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L. D., & Hall, D. (1997). Focus on the future: An evaluation of Ohio gifted programs, Vol. I. Unpublished manuscript, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
26. VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. (1998). A national pilot study of science curriculum effectiveness for high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200-211.
27. VanTassel-Baska, J., Hammett-Hall, K., & Bailey, J. M. (1996). Case studies of promising change schools. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 19, 89-116.
28. VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D. T., Hughes, C. E., & Boyce, L. N. (1996). A study of language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 461-480.
29. Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvan, T. J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120-146.
30. Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.