Abstract
- Avery, L. D., VanTassel-Baska, J., & O’Neill, B. (1997). Making evaluation work: One school district’s experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 4, 124–132.
- Callahan, C. M. (1995). Using evaluation to improve programs for the gifted. The School Administrator, 52, 22–24.
- Carter, K. R. (1992). A model for evaluating programs for the gifted under nonexperimental conditions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 266–283.
- 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.
- 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.
- Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (1998). The 1998 state of the states’ gifted and talented education report. Denver, CO: Author.
- Farrell, B. G. (1992). Lesson plan analysis as a program evaluation tool. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 23–26.
- House, E. R., & Lappan, S. (1994). Evaluation of programs for disadvantaged gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 441–466.
- Hunsaker, S. L., & Callahan, C. M. (1993). Evaluation of gifted programs: Current practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 190–200.
- Johnsen, S. K. (2000). What the research says about accountability and program evaluation. Tempo, 20(4), 23–30.
- Kirschenbaum, R. J. (1993). An interview with Carolyn M. Callahan. Gifted Child Today, 16(3), 28–33.
- Marland, S. (1971). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
- Preskill, H., & Caracelli, V. (1997). Current and developing conceptions of use: Evaluation use TIG survey results. Evaluation Practice, 18, 209–225.
- Ravaglia, R., Suppes, P., Stillinger, C., & Alper, T. (1995). Computer-based mathematics and physics for gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 7–13.
- Shulha, L. M., & Cousins, J. B. (1997). Evaluation use: Theory, research, and practice since 1986. Evaluation Practice, 18, 195–208.
- Stake, R. (1975). Program evaluation. Occasional paper series. Kalamazoo: Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University.
- Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1994). Planning effective evaluations for programs for the gifted. Roeper Review, 17, 45–54.
- Tomlinson, C., Bland, L., & Moon, T. (1993). Evaluation utilization: A review of the literature with implications for gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 171–189.
- Treffinger, D. J. (1998). From gifted education to programming for talent development. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 752–755.
- United States Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
- VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998a). The development of academic talent: A mandate for educational best practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 760–763.
- VanTassel-Baska, J. (Ed.).(1998b). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed.). Denver, CO: Love.
- VanTassel-Baska, J., & Avery, L. D. (1997). Perspectives on evaluation: Local considerations. Research Briefs, 11, 118–128.
- Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
- Volume 25
- Issue 2
- Publication Date: Fall 2001
Investigating the Impact of Gifted Education Evaluation at State and Local Levels: Problems With Traction
Linda D. Avery & Joyce VanTassel-baska
This article highlights results from 2 gifted program evaluations and a follow-up case study investigating how evaluation data were used. Although program evaluation and evaluation utilization are critical issues in driving gifted program development, literature that shares the results of programs with external evaluations is scant. Common findings across the 2 studies were the absence of data on student learning, the fragmentation of service models across the K–12 expanse, the lack of systemic staff-development strategies, and the lack of meaningful parent involvement. Utilization of evaluation results were mixed. Although respondents cited evaluation as a consciousness-raising experience and an important process in effecting change, they were essentially stymied in their efforts to use the evaluation data to catalyze program improvement, particularly in the short run. Barriers to effective use of data are grounded in the insufficient resource base available to sustain highquality programs and in the complex leadership demands that require movement on multiple fronts simultaneously.
Cart Summary
Your cart is empty.