Evaluation models for gifted education programs: a critical examination and comparative study

Year 2024, , 37 - 52, 30.06.2024

Maruška željeznov Seničar , Polonca Serrano , Mojca Gabrıjelcıc

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12546178

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to assess the quality of the planning and implementation of the evaluations of programs for gifted students, the findings obtained, and their validity. We conducted a thorough investigation and an international comparative analysis of foreign content starting points in the field of evaluation of programs of gifted education programs, in which we have presented modern didactic mechanisms that strive to renew the evaluation of program implementation, based on the tendency to improve the situation in the case of implementation of programs, for the gifted students. The literature search identified 713 documents (program evaluation), of which 485 were substantively relevant (evaluation of gifted programs). In the meta-analysis, the descriptive method was supplemented by a content analysis of the gifted programs. The evaluation found that coordinators are dissatisfied with the approach to identifying gifted students and that they have difficulty interpreting policy requirements and respond very pragmatically, and that the implementation of curriculum adaptations is poor. Based on the research findings, four suggestions were made: (i) increase the use of differentiated instruction and personalized learning, (ii) clearly define expectations for instruction for gifted children and align these expectations with the roles and responsibilities of gifted coordinators, teachers, and principals; (iv) develop and implement a plan for clear and regular communication with parents and students.

Keywords

evaluation model, critical review, gifted education, comparative study

References

• Abma, T. A. and Stake, R. E. (2002). Stakes responsive evaluation: Core ideas and evolution. New Directions for Evaluation, 92, 7–22.
• Alkin, M. C. and Christie, C. A. (2004). An evaluation theory tree revisited. Evaluation roots. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Avery, L. D., VanTassel Baska, J., and O'Neill, B. (1997). Making evaluation work: One school district's experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 4, 124–132.
• Avery L. D. and 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(2):153–176.
• Baker E. L. and Schacter J. (1996). Expert Benchmarks for Student Academic Performance: The Case for Gifted Children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(2):61–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629604000202
• Barnette J. J. (1984). Naturalistic Approaches to Gifted and Talented Program Evaluation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 7(1), 26–37.
• Baum, S. M., Hébert, T. P., and Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224–235.
• Berlin, J. (2009). It's All a Matter of Perspective: Student Perceptions on the Impact of Being Labeled Gifted and Talented. Roeper Reviewiev, 31, 217–223.
• Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Bradley Cousins J. (2003). Utilization Effects of Participatory Evaluation. In: Kellaghan T., Stufflebeam D. L. (Eds.). International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. Kluwer International Handbooks of Education, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht, 245 265.
• Bui, S., Craig, S. and Imberman, S. (2014). Is Gifted Education a Bright Idea? Assessing the Impact of Gifted and Talented Programs on Achievement. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6 (3), 30–62.
• Betts, G. (2004). Fostering autonomous learners through levels of differentiation. Roeper Review, 26, 4, 190–191.
• Callahan, C. M. (1986). Asking the right questions: The central issue in evaluating programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(1), 38–42.
• Callahan, C. M. (1993). Development of the scale for the evaluation of gifted identification instruments SEGII). Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(3), 133–140.
• Callahan, C. M. (2004). Program evaluation in gifted education. In: S. M. Reis (Eds.) Essential readings in gifted education (pp.124–155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
• Callahan, C. M. (2006). Developing a Plan for Evaluationg a Program in Gifted Education. Corwin Press, California
• Callahan, C. M. and Caldwell, M. S. (1986). Defensible evaluations of programs for the gifted. In C. J. Maker (Ed.), Critical issues in gifted education (pp 277-296). Rockville, MD: Aspen.
• Callahan, C. M., and Caldwell, M. S. (1995). A practitioner’s guide to evaluating programs for the gifted. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
• Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Oh, S., Azano, A. P., and Hailey, E. P. (2014). What Works in Gifted Education: Documenting the Effects of an Integrated Curricular/Instructional Model for Gifted Students. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 137–167.
• Carter, K. R. and Hamilton, W. (1985). Formative evaluation of gifted programs: a process and model. Gifted Child Quaterly, 29, 1, 5–11.
• Chen, H. T. and Rossi, P. H. (1983). Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach. Evaluation Review, 7, 283–302.
• Christian, T. (2008). Gifted education program delivery models: a statewide evaluation of gifted education in Missouri. Dissertation. Missouri: University of Missouri.
• Colangelo, N., Kerr, B., Christensen, P., and Maxey, J. (2004). A Comparison of Gifted Underachievers and Gifted High Achievers. In S. M. Moon (Ed.), Social/emotional issues, underachievement, and counseling of gifted and talented students (pp. 119–132). Corwin Press.
• Cook, T. D. and Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally
• Cotabish, A. and Robinson, A. (2012). The effects of peer coaching on the evaluation knowl-edge, skills of gifted program administrators. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 160–170
• Doina R. D. (1997). Evaluating Programs for Gifted Students: Meeting the Challenge. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 20, 38–40.
• Fetterman, D. (2003). Empowerment evaluation strikes a responsive cord. In: Donaldson, S. I. & Scriven M. (Eds.). Evaluating social programs and problems: Visions for the new millennium (pp. 63–76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Freeman, J., Raffan, J. and Warwick, I. (2010). Worldwide provision to develop gifts and talents. Berkshire: CFBT Educational Trust.
• Gavin, M. K., Casa, T. M., Adelson, J. L., Carroll, S. R., and Sheffield, L. J. (2009). The Impact of Advanced Curriculum on the Achievement of Mathematically Promising Elementary Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 188–202. Gifted service program evaluation report: executive summary (2017). Arlington: Office of planning and evaluation.
• Glatthorn A. (1987). Teacher Autonomy vs. Curricular Anarchy. NASSP Bulletin.
• Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation.Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Gubbins, E. J. and Renzulli, J. S. (1996). Evaluating gifted and talented programs: Diving into a quagmire, treading water, or executing the high dive . . . temporarily. In: G. C. Brannigan (Ed.), The enlightened educator (pp. 242–260). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Gubbins, E. J., Housand, B., Oliver, M., Schader, R., and De Wet, C. (2007). Unclogging the mathematics pipeline through access to algebraic understanding. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
• Han, K. (2007). The possibilities and limitations of gifted education in Korea: a look at the ISEP science- gifted education center. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(3), 450–463.
• Hébert, T. P. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16, 22-28.
• Hosseinkhanzadeh, A. A., Yeganeh, T., and Taher, M. (2013). Investigate attitudes of parents and teachers about educational placement of gifted students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 631–636.
• Huebner, A.J. and S.C. Betts (1999). Examining Fourth Generation Evaluation. Application to Positive Youth Development', Evaluation 5(3), 340—58.
• Hunsaker, S. L. and Callahan, C. M. (1993). Evaluation of gifted programs: current practices. Journal for the Education of the gifted, 16, –-200.
• Joint Committee on Standards for Education Evaluation. The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs. (1994). Thousand, Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
• Jolly, J. and Matthews, M. (2012). A Critique of the Literature on Parenting Gifted Learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 259–290.
• Kahan, B. (2008). Excerpts from Review of Evaluation Frameworks. http://idmbestpractices.ca/pdf/evaluation- frameworks-review.pdf
• Kao, C. Y. (2012). The Educational Predicament Confronting Taiwan's Gifted Programs: An Evaluation of Current Practices and Future Challenges. Roeper Review, 34, 234–243.
• Kim, M. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Enrichment Programs on Gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60 (2), 102–116.
• Kirkpatrick, D. (1994). Evaluating Training Programs: the Four Levels. San Francisco: Publishers Group.
• Ki-so Han, KS. (2007). The Possibilities and Limitations of Gifted Education in Korea: A Look at the ISEP Science- Gifted Education Center. Asia Pacific Educ. Review, 8, 450–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03026473.
• Koshy, V. and Pinheiro-Torres, C. (2013). ‘Are we being de-gifted, Miss?’ Primary school gifted and talented co-ordinators’ responses to the Gifted and Talented Education Policy in England. British Educational Research Journal.
• Kulieke, M. J. (1986). The role of evaluation in inservice and staff development for educators of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(3), 140–144.
• Landrum, M. S., Callahan, C. M., and Shaklee, B. D. (2001). Aiming for excellence: Gifted program standards. Waco, TX: Prufrock.
• Little, C. A., Feng, A. X., VanTassel-Baska, J., Rogers, K. B., and Avery, L. D. (2007). A Study of Curriculum Effectiveness in Social Studies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302722
• Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., and Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 718–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.718
• Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Webb, R. M., and Bleske-Rechek, A. (2006). Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychological Science, 17, 194–199. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01685
• Lundsteen, S. W. (1987). Qualitative Assessment of Gifted Education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628703100105
• Marland, S. P. (1972). 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.
• MacBeath, J. and McGlynn, A. (2006). Samoevalvacija: Kaj je tu koristnega za šole? [Self-evaluation: What's in it for schools?]. Ljubljana: Državni izpitni center.
• McCoach, B. and Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quaterly, 51, 3, 246–255.
• Matthews, D. and Kitchen, J. (2007). School-within-a-school gifted programs. Gifted Child Quaterly, 51, 3, 256– 271.
• Moon, T. R., Brighton, C. M., and Trinter, C. P. (2012). A report on the evaluation of the Gifted Preogramming Options. Community Consolidated School District 181. http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/files/8QNUB76C0EF6/$file/D181%20Board%20Final%20Report_board%20docs.pdf
• Mönks, F. J. (1992). Development of gifted children: The issue of identification and programming. In: F. J. Mönks in W. A. M. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future. Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children (pp. 191–202). Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
• NAGC Pre-K-Grade 12 – Gifted progranming standards (2010). http://www.nagc.org/ProgrammingStandards.aspx
• Neumeister, K. S. and Burney, V. H. (2012). Gifted program evaluation: a handbook for administrators and coordinators. ZDA: Prufrock Press.
• Ozcan, D. and Kayadelen, K. (2015). Special Education Teachers and Their Opinions about the Education of Gifted Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 190, 358–363.
• Park, G., Lubinski, D., and Benbow, C. P. (2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and sciences: tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological Science, 18, 948–95.
• Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
• Polyzopoulou, K., Kokaridas, D., Patsiaouras, A., and Gari, A. (2014). Teachers' perceptions toward education of gifted children in Greek educational settings. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 14(2), 211–221.
• Purcell, J. H., Burns, D. E., Tomlinson, C. A., Imbeau, M. B., and Martin, J. L. (2002). Bridging the Gap: A Tool and Technique to Analyze and Evaluate Gifted Education Curricular Units. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(4), 306–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620204600407
• Reid, N. (2004). Evaluation of programmes. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen, Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (pp. 377–390). Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove Press.
• Reis, S. M., Hébert, T. P., Díaz, E. P., Maxfield, L. R., and Ratley, M. E. (1995). Case studies of talented students who achieve and underachieve in an urban high school. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center for the Gifted and Talented.
• Reis, S. M., and Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Research Related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model. Gifted Education International, 18(1), 15–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940301800104
• Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Coyne, M., Schreiber, F. J., Eckert, R. D., and Gubbins, E. J. (2007). Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading fluency, comprehension, and attitude toward reading: An evidence-based study. The Elementary School Journal, 108, 3-24.
• 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.
• Renzulli, J. S. (2016). Reflections on Gifted Education: Critical Works by Joseph S. Renzulli and Colleagues. Waco TX: Prufrock Press.
• Renzulli, J. and Smith, L. (1979). Issues and procedures in evaluating programs. In Passow, A. (Ed.), The gifted and talented: Their education and development. The seventy-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 289–307). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Riba, S., Pérez-Sánchez, L. F., and Villaverde, A. B. (2018). Programs and Practices for Identifying and Nurturing High Intellectual Abilities in Spain. Gifted Child Today, 41(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517750703
• Robinson, A., Cotabish, A., O’Tuel, F., and Wood, B. (2005). Developing a statewide evaluation initiative in gifted education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Montreal, Quebec.
• Robinson, A., Cotabish, A., Wood, B., and Biggers, A. (2009). The Arkansas Evaluation Initiative in Gifted Education. In Joseph S. Renzulli, E. Jean Gubbins, Kristin S. McMillen, Rebecca D. Eckert, Catherine A. Little (Eds.), Systems & Models for Developing Programs for the Gifted Talented (pp. 413–423). Publisher: Prufrock Press Inc.
• Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
• Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented. A sxnhesis of the research on educational pratice. Gifted Child Quaterly, 51, 4, 382–396.
• Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D. in Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
• Shewbridge, C., (2014). OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264207707-en.
• Silky, W. and Reading, J. (1992). REDSIL: A fourth generation evaluation model for gifted education programs. Roeper Review, 15, 2, 67–69.
• Stake, R. E. (2010). Program Evaluation Particularly Responsive Evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 7(15), 180–201. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v7i15.303
• Sternberg, R. J. and Davidson, J. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1973). Evaluation as enlightenment for decision-making. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company.
• Stufflebeam, D. L. and Coryn, C. L. S. (2014). Evaluation Theory, Models and Applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Stufflebeam, D. L., Madaus, G. F., and Scriven, M. (2000). Evaluation models: View points on educational and human services evaluation. Boston: Kluvwer Nijhoff Publishing.
• Tomilson, C. A., Bland, L. and Moon, T. R. (1993). Evaluation utilization: A review of the literature with implication for gifted education. Journal for the Education of Gifted, 16, 171–189.
• Tomilson, C. A., Callahan, C. M. (1994). Planning effective evaluations of programs for the gifted. Roeper Review, 17, 46–51.
• Tomilson, C. A., Bland, L., Moon, T. R., and Callahan, C. M. (1994). Case studies of evaluation utilization in gifted education. Evaluation Practice, 15, 153–168.
• Tyler, R. W. (1942). General statement on evaluation. Journal of Education Research, 35, 492–501.
• VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners: An introduction. In J. VanTassel-Baska & C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (pp. 1-23). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
• VanTassel-Baska, J. (2004). Metaevaluation findings: A call for gifted program quality. In J. VanTassel-Baska & A.X. Feng (Eds.), Designing and utilising evaluation for gifted program improvement (227–256). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
• VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analisis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs: a clarion call for enhanced gifted program development. Gifted child quaterly, 50, 3, 199–215.
• VanTassel Baska, J. and Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quaterly, 51, 4, 342–358.
• VanTassel-Baska, J. and Feng A. X. (Eds.) (2004). Designing and utilising evaluation for gifted program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
• VanTassel-Baska, J., Willis, G. and Meyer, D. (1989). Evaluation of a Full-Time Self-Contained Class For Gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 7–10.
• Westberg, K. L. (1999). What happens to young, creative producers? NAGC: Creativity and Curriculum Divisions’ Newsletter, 3, 13–16.
• Wiggins, G. (1996). Anchoring assessment with exemplars: Why students and teachers need models. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(2), 66–69.