A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program development

Gifted Child Quarterly

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 199-215

  VanTassel Baska, Joyce ^a  

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747052574     PISSN: 00169862     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/001698620605000302     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28-38.
2. Avery, L., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (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.
3. Avery, L., VanTassel-Baska, J., & O'Neill, B. (1997). Making evaluation work: One school district's model. Gifted Child Quarterly. 41, 28-37.
4. Carter, K. R. (1992). A model for evaluating programs for the gifted under non-experimental conditions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 266-283.
5. Coleman, L. (1995). The power of specialized educational environments in the development of giftedness: The need for research on social context. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 171-176.
6. Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. 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.
7. Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiring and research design: Choosing many fine traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (1998). The 1998 state of the states gifted and talented education report. Denver, CO: Author.
9. Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2003). State of the states report. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
10. Denzin, N. K. (2000). The practices and politics of interpretation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitativ research (2nd ed., pp. 897-922). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Eisenhart, M. A., & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in qualitative research. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millery, & J. Preisslc (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 643-680). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
12. Farrell, B. G. (1992). Lesson plan analysis as a program evaluation tool. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 23-26.
13. Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K.J. (2000). Qualitative inquiry: Tensions and transformations. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitativ research (2nd ed., pp. 1025-1046). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. House, E. R., & Lappan, S. (1994). Evaluation of programs for disadvantaged gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 441-466.
15. Hunsaker, S. L., & Callahan, C. M. (1993). Evaluation of gifted programs: Current practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 16, 190-200.
16. Johnsen, S. K. (2000, Fall). What the research says about accountability and program evaluation. Tempo, 23-30.
17. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.
18. Landrum, M. S., & Shaklee, B. (Eds.). (1998). Pre-K-12 gifted program standards. Washington DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
19. Parker, J. P. (2002). Directory of graduate degree programs and services in gifted and talented education. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
20. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Schalock, R. L. (2001). Outcome-based evaluation (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
22. Scriven, M. (2000). Evaluation ideologies. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. E. Madaus, & T. Kellagha (Eds.), Evaluation models (pp. 249-278). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
23. Shark, G. (2002). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
24. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Evaluation models. In G. T. Gary & J. C. Greene (Eds.), New directions for evaluation (pp. 7-99). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26. Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1994). Planning effective evaluations for programs for the gifted. Roeper Review, 17, 45-54.
27. Treffinger, D. J. (1998). From gifted education to programming for talent development. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 752-755.
28. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: Author.
29. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). The development of academic talent: A mandate for educational best practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 760-763.
30. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Avery, L. (1997). Perspectives on evaluation: Local considerations. Research Briefs, 11, 118-128.
31. VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L., Struck, J., Feng, A., Bracken, B., Drummond, D., et al. (2003). The William and Mary Classroom Observation Scales-Revised. College of William and Mary, Center for Gifted Education, Project Athena: Williamsburg, VA.
32. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Feng, A. (2004). Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
33. Vaughn, V. L., Feldhusen, J. F., & Asher, J. W. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 92-97.