Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education

Gifted Child Quarterly

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 342-358

  VanTassel Baska, Joyce ^a   Brown, Elissa F ^a  

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

Author keywords

Curriculum models; Differentiated curriculum for the gifted; Research based evidence of effectiveness

Indexed keywords

EID: 35048875740     PISSN: 00169862     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0016986207306323     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Avery, L. D. (1998). Gifted curriculum at secondary level through Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate. Gifted and Talented International, 13, 90-93.
4. Baum, S. (1985). Learning disabled students with superior cognitive abilities: A validation study of descriptive behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut at Storrs.
5. Baum, S. (1988). Enrichment program for the gifted learning disabled students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 226-230.
6. Benbow, C. P., & Arjmand, O. (1990). Predictors of high academic achievement in mathematics and science by mathematically talented students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 430-431.
7. Betts, G. T. (1986). The autonomous learner model for the gifted and talented. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 27-56). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
8. Bracken, B., VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A., & Brown, E. (2007). Project Athena: A tale of two studies. In J. VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 63-67). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
9. 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. New York: Teachers College Press.
10. Bruner, J. (Ed.). (1970). Man: A course of study. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
11. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. & Gross, M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students (Vols. I and II). Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Belin-Blank Center.
12. Daurio, S. P. (1979). Education enrichment versus acceleration: A review of the literature. In W. C. Gregory, S. J. Cohn, & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment (pp. 13-63). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
13. Delcourt, M. A. B. (1994). Characteristics of high-level creative productivity. In R. Subotnik & K. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 401-436). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
14. Delisle, J. R. (1981). The revolving door identification model: Correlates of creative production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut at Storrs.
15. Emerick, L. (1988). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students' perceptions of factors relating to the reversal of the academic underachievement pattern. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut at Storrs.
16. Evans, B. (2003). The William and Mary Curriculum User Survey results. Williamsburg, VA: Center for Gifted Education.
17. Feldhusen, J. F., & Kolloff, M. B. (1986). The Purdue three-stage model for gifted education. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 126-152). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
18. Feldhusen, J. F., & Robinson-Wyman, A. (1986). The Purdue secondary model for gifted education. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 153-179). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
19. Feng, A., VanTassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., & Bai, W., & O'Neill, B. (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.
20. Ford, D. Y. (1999). Renzulli's philosophy and program: Opening doors and nurturing potential. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 117-124.
21. Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies. In R. F. Elmore & S. H. Fuhrman (Eds.), The governance of curriculum (pp. 186-202). Alexandria, VA: ASC.
22. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
23. Grigorenko, E. L., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). School-based tests of the triarchic theory of intelligence: Three settings, three samples, three syllabi. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 167-208.
24. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
25. Heal, M. M. (1989). Student perceptions of labeling the gifted: A comparative case study analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut at Storrs.
26. Hebert, T. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16, 22-28.
27. Johnsen, S. K. (2000, Summer). What the research says about curriculum. Tempo, 25-30.
28. Johnson, D. T., Boyce, L. N., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (1995). Science curriculum review: Evaluating materials for high-ability learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 36-44.
29. Kaplan, S. (1986). The Kaplan grid. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 56-68). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
30. Karafelis, P. (1986). The effects of the tri-art drama curriculum on the reading comprehension of students with varying levels of cognitive ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut at Storrs.
31. Keating, D. P. (Ed.). (1976). Intellectual talent: Research and development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
32. Kolloff, M. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1984). The effects of enrichment on self-concept and creative thinking. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 53-57.
33. Kulik, J. (1993). Meta analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.
34. Latham, A. S. (1997). Quantifying MI's gains. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 84-85.
35. Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyan, F. F. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
36. Little, C. A., Feng, A. X., VanTassel-Baska, J., Rogers, K. B., & Avery, L. D. (2002). Final report on social studies curriculum effectiveness study. Williamsburg, VA: Center for Gifted Education, The College of William and Mary.
37. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1994). The study of mathematically precocious youth: The first three decades of a planned 50-year study of intellectual talent. In R. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 375-400). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38. Lynch, S. J. (1992). Fast-paced high school science for the academically talented: A six-year perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 147-154.
39. Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
40. Maker, C. J., Nielson, A. B., & Rogers, J. A. (1994). Multiple intelligences: Giftedness, diversity, and problem solving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(1), 4-19.
41. Maker, C. J., Rogers, J. A., Nielson, A. B., & Bauerle, P. R. (1996). Multiple intelligences, problem solving, and diversity in the general classroom. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 437-460.
42. McLean, J. E., & Chisson, B. S. (1980). Talented unlimited program: Summary of research findings for 1979-80. Mobile, AL: Mobile County Public Schools.
43. Meeker, M. (1969). The structure of intellect: Its interpretation and uses. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
44. Moon, S., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). The program for academic and creative enrichment (PACE): A follow-up study 10 years later. In R. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 375-400). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
45. Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillon, D. R. (1994). Long-term effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 38-48.
46. National Association for Gifted Children. (1998). Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted program standards. Washington, DC: Author.
47. National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL: Author.
48. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (H.R. 1), 107th Congress, 110 (2002) (enacted).
50. Purcell, J., Burns, D., Tomlinson, C., Imbeau, M., & Martin, J. (2002). Bridging the gap: A tool and technique to analyze and evaluate gifted education curricular units. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 306-312.
51. Reis, S. M. (1981). An analysis of the productivity of gifted students participating in programs using the revolving door identification model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut at Storrs.
52. Reis, S. M., Gubbins, E. J., Richards, S., Schrieber, R., Briggs, C., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Talented readers. Presentation at the National Association for Gifted Children 50th Annual Convention, Indianapolis, IN.
53. Reis, S. M., & Purcell, J. H. (1993). An analysis of content elimination and strategies used by elementary classroom teachers in the curriculum compacting process. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 147-170.
54. Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L, Kulikowich, J. M., & Purcell, J. H. (1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 123-129.
55. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
56. Renzulli, J. S. (Ed.). (1988). Technical report of research studies related to the revolving door identification model. Storrs, CT: Bureau of Educational Research, University of Connecticut.
57. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
58. Renzulli, J. S., Reis, S. M. & Smith, L. (1981). The revolving-door model: A new way of identifying the gifted. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 648-649.
59. Rodd, J. (1999). Encouraging young children's critical and creative thinking skills: An approach in one English elementary school. Childhood Education, 75, 350-354.
60. Schlichter, C. (1986). Talents unlimited: Applying the multiple talent approach in mainstream and gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
61. Schlichter, C. L., & Palmer, W. R. (Eds.). (1993). Thinking smart: A premiere of the talents unlimited model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
62. Smith, W., Odhiambo, E., & El Khateeb, H. (2000, November). The typologies of successful and unsuccessful students in the core subjects of language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies using the theory of multiple intelligences in a high school environment in Tennessee. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Bowling Green, KY.
63. Stanley, J. C., Keating, D., & Fox, L. (1974). Mathematical talent. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
64. Starko, A. J. (1986). The effects of the revolving door identification model on creative productivity and self-efficacy. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 291-297.
65. Sternberg, R. (1981). A componential theory of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 86-93.
66. Sternberg, R., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1995). The triadic model applied to identify, teach, and assess gifted children. Roeper Review, 17, 255-260.
67. Sternberg, R. J., Ferrari, M., Clinkenbeard, P., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1996). Identification, instruction, and assessment of gifted children: A construct validation of a triarchic model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 129-137.
68. Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998a). Teaching for successful intelligence raises school achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 667-699.
69. Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998b). Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 374-384.
70. Strahan, D., Summey, H., & Banks, N. (1996). Teaching to diversity through multiple intelligences: Student and teacher responses to instructional improvement. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 19(2), 43-65.
71. Swiatek, M. A. (2000). A decade of longitudinal research on academic acceleration through the study of mathematically precocious youth. Roeper Review, 24, 141-144.
72. Taylor, C. W., Ghiselin, B., Wolfer, J., Loy, L., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (1964). Development of a theory of education from psychology and other basic research findings. Final Report, USOE Cooperative Research Project, No. 621. Salt Lake City: University of Utah.
73. Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J., Leppien, J., & Burns, D. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
74. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instruction models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 164-169.
75. VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L. D., Little, C. A., & Hughes, C. E. (2000). An evaluation of the implementation: The impact of the William and Mary units on schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 23, 244-272.
76. VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G. M., Reis, R. R., Poland, D. L., & Avery, L. D. (1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200-211.
77. VanTassel-Baska, J., Bracken, B., Feng, A., Tieso, C., & Brown, E. (In press). A longitudinal study of reading comprehension and reasoning ability of students in elementary Title I schools. Learning and Individual Differences.
78. VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A., Stambaugh, T., & Bracken, B. A. (In press). The William and Mary classroom observation and student observation scales: An evidential basis for studying teacher change. Journal of the Education of the Gifted.
79. VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D. T., Hughes, C. E., & Boyce, L. N. (1996). A study of the language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 461-480.
80. VanTassel-Baska, J., Zuo, L., Avery, L. D., & Little, C. A. (2002). A curriculum study of gifted student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 30-44.