Toward More Research on Effective Practices with Gifted ... - CiteSeerX

Toward More Research on Effective Practices with Gifted Students in General-Education Settings Gail R. Ryser & Susan K. Johnsen A lack of efficacyresearch related t o effectivepractices for gifted students in the general-education setting exists in the literature. Future research efforts in this area need t o begin b y clearly defining worthwhile effects to study. These worthwhile effects relate t o what w e want our gifted students to accomplish in both the short and long term. Once these effects are defined, we recommend that researchers identify the important critical attributes o f the desired practices, include ways o f determining i f the practice is actually implemented in the classroom, and use technically adequate measures and procedures to gather data.

How might researchers in gifted education address issues regarding effective practices for gifted students in the general-education classroom? For this special issue, we examined this important question by reviewing the current literature from 1989-1995; we found 37 empirically based articles that met our criteria. We also invited researchers to submit, for possible inclusion in this special issue, efficacy studies related to effective practices. Three of these articles are included in this issue. Why is there such an obvious lack of research on effective practices? What are some of the challenges with conducting efficacy research? How do we determine the effects that are worthwhile to study? What are the recommendations for future research? These are questions that we will attempt to answer in this final article.

Lack of Empirically Based Research on Effective Practices In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a preponderance of the empirical inquiry in gifted education was related to student characteristics Gail R. Ryser and Susan K. Johnsen also provided the opening article of this issue. Both are in the Educational Psychology Department at Baylor University, Waco, Texas.

Iournal for the Education of the Gifted. Vol. 19, No. 4,1996, pp. 481-496. Copyright 0 1996 The Association for the Gifted, Reston, Virginia 22091.

481 Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016

482

Journal for the Education of the Gifted

and identification of gifted students (for a review, see Rogers, 1989). During this period of time, articles examining instructional techniques, curriculum quality, or program development -all of which influence effective practices for gifted students-were largely nonresearch in nature. In 1989, the federal Javits grant program funded its first round of grants. A priority for these grants was to focus on students who were underrepresented in gifted programs. The majority of these grants had as their primary objective the development of measures useful for identifying such students (Gallagher, 1994). The early 1990s saw a shift in the inquiry of educators of gifted children as the entire educational system began to concentrate on including all students in the general-education setting to the greatest degree possible. A need to give more attention to the best practices for gifted students in the general-education setting became increasingly important. All of the 19 second-round Javits grants awarded during 1992 had, as part of their purpose, the search for effective practices for gifted students (U.S. Department of Education, 1994). Results from that research should begin to make its way into the literature. At present, there is still a paucity of empirically based research on effective practices. Conducting research with any special population places special challenges on researchers, and the very nature of gifted education adds additional challenges. These challenges include: 1. Complex phenomena-gifted programs are holistic in nature; it is difficult to isolate the variables that are causing the effect. 2. Variations in worthwhile outcomes -stakeholders often have conflicting views. 3. Nonrandom samples-randomly assigning participants to treatments becomes difficult when working with intact groups such as classes of students. 4. Lack of equivalent control groups-defining an equivalent control group might result in an effective treatment being withheld from one group of gifted students. 5. Measures with few difficult items- finding norm-referenced and standardized measures with more than a few very difficult items results in lowered scores due to ceiling effects and regression effects. 6 . Limited amount of time spent to study the phenomenonconducting ethnographic studies takes time -time to spend in the field and time to analyze the resulting data.

Downloaded from jeg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016

More Research on Practices

483

In light of these challenges, where should a researcher begin to examine effective practices for gifted learners in the general-education classroom?

Identifying Worthwhile Effects Clearly defining the worthwhile effects (i.e., dependent variables) of educating gifted students in general-education settings is the first step in designing a study that examines effective practices. What is a worthwhile effect? Often researchers focus on certain broadbased effects because measures are readily available or easy to administer rather than because they show the important benefits of a specific practice. That is, “worthwhileness” is determined by expediency rather than notions of quality. For example, many studies use achievement tests as the dependent variable because these kinds of measures are often administered in school on an annual basis and are considered “proof” of an effective program. However, the researchers may implement a practice that does not relate directly to achievement but increases different kinds of behaviors such as interactions among students. If these kinds of interactions are desirable, then the researcher needs to find ways of describing the interactions and measuring the effects in the short and long term (Coleman, 1995).“Worthwhileness” is therefore determined by (a) describing the expected effect on students identified as gifted in the generaleducation classroom, (b)matching the effect with the practice, and (c)deciding if this practice improves some gifted students’ success in the short term and the long term. This section will address each of these criteria. Describing Expected Effects

Where might a researcher begin in describing worthwhile effects?To illustrate how some researchers have addressed this first criterion, we will use the papers in this issue and our own research to describe the effects on students identified as gifted in the general-education classroom. VanTassel-Baska, Johnson, Hughes, and Boyce’s study (1996)is concerned with the curriculum used with gifted learners. When asked how she established “worthwhileness,” VanTassel-Baska responded that she examined the field of gifted education in a holistic manner to determine critical needs (personal communication,


484

[ournal for the Education of the Gifted

1-12-96). First, she asks herself questions: “Is what I am doing going to make a contribution to the field?’’and, second, “Is it going to assist in building defensible programs in gifted education?” Using these questions and her interests and a review of the literature, she noticed only a few empirically based studies in curriculum for gifted students, particularly in language arts; therefore, she decided to study this area. To build such programs, VanTassel-Baska states that we “must have a number of studies that show the same effects.” Maker, Rogers, Nielson, and Bauerle’s (1996) article examines problem-solving abilities in culturally diverse populations. Maker uses a theoretical framework to support decisions she makes about worthwhile effects (personal communication, 1-18-96). She states, “If we believe that intelligence is broadly defined, and a key concept of intelligence is problem-solving in seven domains, we must examine the effects predicted by that theory” (i.e., problem solving across the domains). Unfortunately, “children with varied abilities in the general-education setting do only part of what they can doschool-type problems with right answers.” We “need new types of assessment, possibly using portfolios with student-designed products that illustrate the degree to which students can create new knowledge,” a central theme of Gardner’s (1985)theory. Friedman and Lee’s study (1996) examines the effects of using higher levels of thinking questions with high-ability students. Friedman stated that achievement tests don’t say much because they usually measure knowledge, comprehension, and other low-level thinking processes (personal communication, 1-16-96). The challenge for researchers in gifted education is to “design and measure more cognitively complex thinking.” Another worthwhile area is “teaching for self-efficacy.”By self-efficacy, Friedman means “learners who take intellectual risks, learners who set learning goals (i.e., goals that make them “sweat” cognitively) vs. performance goals, and learners who connect ability and effort.” When asked how she determined the “worthwhileness” of these effects, she responded, “It is tied to the general area of taking a cognitive approach to motivation. We define talent in schools cognitively and schools do not generally promote attribution patterns that encourage motivation and self-efficacy.’’ In our own research in Project Mustard Seed (Johnsen, Haensly, & Ryser, 1993),we grappled with the problem of deciding on worthwhile effects in the general-education program. We identified worthwhile effects from a review of the literature, our personal and professional knowledge of gifted children, and observations in teachers’



485

classrooms. The effects we considered worthy for gifted students included those that would increase their achievement in language arts and mathematics, assist them in producing creative products, intellectually challenge them, and provide for in-depth study of selfselected topics of interest. According to these authors, a worthwhile effect is determined by several sources: its contribution to the field of gifted education, its theoretical basis, its ability to improve practices in the generaleducation settings, and its place in the literature in gifted education. Researchers, therefore, need to ask these important yet difficult questions before initiating a study: “Why is this problem worthy?” and “How might I describe the effect?”

Match Described Effect with Practices The second criterion for determining “worthwhileness” is to match the student effect with the desired practice. Practices might include a model, a curriculum, or an instructional strategy. VanTassel-Baska et al. (1996)matched the student effects of critical reading and persuasive writing to a differentiated language arts curriculum organized around the Integrated Curriculum Model for gifted elementary students. Maker et al. (1996) focused on the effect of developing the problem-solving ability of potentially gifted primary students from culturally diverse backgrounds by using problem-solving activities based on Gardner’s (1985)theory of multiple intelligences, Maker’s principles of curriculum design, and the integration of culturally relevant content. Using a sample of high-achieving students in general-education settings, Friedman and Lee (1996)evaluated the two effects of improving the cognitive complexity of the classroom environment and involving students in their schoolwork for three cognitive process-oriented models of gifted education- the Enrichment Triad Model, the Multiple Talent Model, and the CognitiveAffective Interaction Model. Johnsen et al. (1993)related improved student achievement to the classroom practices of matching content to interest, assessment to content, and classroom options to preference.

Short- and Long-Term Effects The third criterion for determining worthwhile effects is to examine if a practice will improve gifted students’ success in the short term and the long term. Short-term effects might be linked to successful


486


performance in school, whereas long-term effects might be linked to successful performance in college or even in a chosen career. In considering “worthwhileness,” the researcher must examine the relationship between the short-term and long-term benefits (e.g., Does increased in-school problem solving relate to out-of-school problem solving? Does changing student higher level responses relate to an improvement in analytical reading or reasoning skills?). Obviously, student effects cannot be determined if a practice is not implemented by the classroom teacher. For even short-term implementation, different stakeholders’ perspectives of “worthwhileness” must be reconciled. What is considered “success” in the short and long term may be very different from the viewpoints of an administrator, an academician, a teacher, a student, or a parent. Administrators, such as superintendents, often look at a program in a holistic manner. With the emphasis on accountability, administrators may determine a “worthwhile” effect as a program that improves overall student performance and is cost effective; whereas academicians observe, control, or otherwise manipulate variables to determine effects that are linked to specific strategies with specific samples or cases. Short-term “worthwhile” effects are those that produce statistical significance or support new models or theories. Teachers, on the other hand, have an interest in their students’ performance on a daily basis. Worthwhile effects are linked to new activities that they can incorporate into their daily lesson plans and that may improve student interest and/or learning. Finally, students and parents may be primarily concerned with enjoyment of school, performance on achievement tests, or report cards. From their viewpoints, a worthwhile effect may be determined by successful interactions with other students, comparisons with other students, and/or college entrance examination scores. With all of these different perspectives, collaboration is an important element in gaining initial acceptance for the practice. With acceptance by various stakeholders, the likelihood is greater that the practice will be implemented to some degree during the initial stages of the research. In this way, at least short-term effects can be identified. If implementation is dependent upon the “newness” of the training, the researcher, or elements within the research model, the practice may be dropped from the teacher’s repertoire as soon as the study is completed. For example, Friedman and Lee (1996) noted that “higher cognitive queries dropped off to baseline levels approximately 45 days after intervention’’ (p. 424). Practices that



487

produce worthwhile short-term effects from multiple perspectives and that are not dependent upon the involvement of the researcher have a greater chance of being implemented and supported by the stakeholders in the long term. Only then can long-term effects on gifted students in the general-education classroom be identified. In summary, those interested in conducting research on effective practices should begin by examining the “worthwhileness” of the desired effect. This examination includes describing the expected student effects, matching these effects to classroom practices, and determining the short- and long-term effects from the perspectives of the various stakeholders. Attention to worthwhile student effects should produce worthwhile results that will increase the empirically based research on effective practices and improve instruction for gifted students in the general-education classroom. Once short- and long-term worthwhile effects are identified, researchers must design and eventually conduct their studies.

Recommendations for Future Research Ellis and Fouts (1993)have identifled three levels of research: basic or pure research done in a laboratory setting; applied research done in a school setting; and evaluation research applied to school programs. This special issue has primarily focused on the third level of evaluation research. While researchers in the field of gifted education should engage in all three levels of research, in an attempt to examine the question of effective practices for gifted students in the general-education classroom, we narrowed our search. Reformers in education and those engaged in evaluation research repeatedly stress the importance of defining the program clearly (Callahan & Caldwell, 1995; Fullan & Miles, 1992; House & Lapan, 1994; Sarason, 1990)As Callahan and Caldwell (1995)note, “It is not possible to evaluate that which you cannot describe” (p. 14).Not only must implementers have a clear understanding of the program itself but they must also determine if the program has been implemented. As Fetterman (1993)points out, “there is no adequate substitute for direct, daily observation in evaluation’’ (p.3).Needless to say, as a field we are aware of the challenges of finding reliable instruments that are valid for the purposes of the study (Callahan & Caldwell, 1995; Hansen & Linden, 1990). In this final section, we will address the following recommendations for future research:


488


1. Establishing the important critical attributes of the effective practices, 2. Including ways to determine if the practice is actually implemented in the classroom, and 3. Developing and using technically adequate measurement instruments and procedures to gather data. Establishing the Critical Attributes of Effective Practices Once a potentially effective practice has been matched to the desired effect, we recommend determining the critical attributes of each component of that practice. Just because strong support exists for practices such as acceleration and career education, it does not mean that researchers have identified the practice’s critical attributes that must be present to produce the desired effects. Fifteen different acceleration options have been identified in the literature (Southern & Jones, 1991).Do all 15 have the same effects? If not, which option is the most successful in producing the desired effects? Does one particular form of acceleration have critical attributes that the others do not? What are the critical attributes that are absolutely essential in producing the desired effect? Which attributes might vary without changing the desired effect? Kulik and Kulik (1992)conducted a meta-analysis to answer these questions about the practice of grouping. They examined several configurations, including multilevel classes and accelerated classes. In comparing one program model with another, they addressed the key attributes that influenced differences in academic gains among students in the various program options. They identified the critical attribute as the degree to which the curriculum was adjusted to match the academic ability level of the participating students. Students in programs that offered few curricular adjustments were those that made the smallest academic gains; conversely, students in programs with the largest number of curricular adjustments were those that made the greatest academic gains. Some attributes of acceleration that may vary include the instructional strategies and the system delivery model such as acceleration using curriculum compacting, early access to college-level courses, or grade skipping. Therefore, when examples of the practice can be found in the literature, researchers can determine its critical attributes by identifying many examples of the practice that produce the desired effects, determining which attributes are always present in the examples of



489

the effective practice, and describing which attributes vary and do not appear to affect the desired results. Some practices, however, do not have a large research base (i.e., a large number of examples to compare). In these cases, the researcher must fully describe the critical attributes of the practice from personal observations and related studies, models, and theories. If more than one attribute appears critical, then these may be systematically varied by the researcher. For example, what are the effects of curriculum compacting when students identify the alternative activities vs. the teacher?when the alternative activities relate to the content area vs. another content area? when acceleration occurs within the alternative activities vs. when it does not? Clearly defining the critical attributes of the desired practice is an important first step in determining which characteristics of the practice actually produced the short- and long-term effects. In this issue the researchers focused primarily on short-term effects. VanTassel-Baska et al. (1996)identified the attributes of connecting high level questions to literary passages, providing specific writing models, and using self-study as critical to improving students’ ability to read critically and write persuasively. Maker et al. (1996)identified opportunities to experience problem solving in multiple formats and settings as a critical attribute for developing problem solving. Friedman and Lee (1996)identified teachers’ questioning at a cognitively complex level as a critical attribute for developing cognitively high levels of students’ responses. In our Javits grant, we have identified the critical attributes of the changes desired in the general-education classroom and their relationship to student performance and achievement.

Determining Implementation Measuring the effects of a change such as a single instructional strategy, a unit of curriculum, or a program model is dependent upon the degree to which the change is actually implemented in the classroom or school system. The challenge for researchers is to define implementation variables clearly so that they might be observed and measured. For example, once the characteristic of “independence” is identified as an important variable of a particular model, then it must be fully described. What does “independence” look like in the classroom? The observer then systematically collects data to see if “independence” is actually occurring in the classroom. Finally, if it


490


is occurring, the observer identifies the effects of its implementa-

tion. Does “independence” increase students’ engaged time in topics of interest to them? Do increasing amounts of “independence” relate to more in-depth study of these topics? Do these studies of topics then relate to future success in school or the community? For example, to observe the effects of different models used in gifted education, Friedman and Lee (1996)observed the teachers’ instructional interactions with students, particularly those requiring high levels of teacher queries and student responses. As they noted, however, this one variable certainly did not measure the multiplicity of characteristics associated with each program. As the classroom teachers in their study commented, the Enrichment Triad model “increased student independence and enthusiasm and decreased wasted class time” (p. 431). Since most models require complex changes, they are not often implemented fully within the first year of a study. It is important that the researcher not only describe the characteristics of the desired model but also the intermediate steps or components that might show movement toward the change. The effects of partial and full implementation then may be determined. For example, in Project Mustard Seed we used the Classroom Instructional Practices Scale [CIPS (Johnsen, 1992)]to determine the degree to which the classroom teacher was adapting for learner differences in the general-education setting (Johnsen et al., 1993).Adaptation was defined to include four sets of variables that a teacher might change: content, how the teacher organized the subject matter; rate, how the teacher varied the pace for individual students; preference, how the teacher organized activities to match styles and interest; and environment, how the teacher organized the classroom and other settings for individuals, small-group, and large-group interactions. Based on classroom observations, descriptors and examples were listed for each variable that conveyed a specific image of each classroom practice. These practices were then ordered logically from the least to the most adaptive classroom practice. Observers were trained in the use of the CIPS, and teachers and students were interviewed to verify the accuracy of the observation. Once an interrater reliability was established in the .90s, the scale was ready for use in the classrooms of 114 teachers. In this way, the effects of both partial and full implementation could be observed. Given the holistic nature of the phenomenon, other sources and methods were also used to determine the benefits of the practices used in Project Mustard Seed. These are outlined in the next section.



491

Developing and Using Technically Adequate Measures

There are inherent challenges related to the assessment of classroom practices for gifted students. When assessing the cognitive processes of gifted students, many researchers use standardized measures. Generally, these measures contain few difficult items resulting in a ceiling effect. In other words, gifted students score at the top of the possible range of a measure, leaving in question the extent of their knowledge. In addition, if using a repeated measures design, regression toward the mean may occur, (i.e., scoring at the top of a measure the first time and scoring lower in repeated measurements). When assessing the noncognitive aspects of gifted students’ lives, surveys and interviews also play a prominent role in gifted education. Too often these types of measures rely heavily on the researcher’s perspective and ask gifted students questions concerning their experiences that are too narrow in focus. Coleman (1995)states that there is a danger that these results reflect the researcher’s paradigm rather than gifted students’ reality. We need to identify adequate instruments that measure the full range of possibilities for both the cognitive and noncognitive processes of gifted students. What are some alternatives for measuring these processes in gifted education? Researchers need to make sound decisions concerning measurement options by aligning the assessment procedures to the critical attributes of the practice and by using technically adequate measures. Aligning the Assessment to the Critical Attributes of the Practice. One definition of measurement is to assign numerals to events or objects according to a rule or rules (Kerlinger, 1986).As Kerlinger points out, this definition lacks a statement concerning the “quality” of the rules. To what degree does the rule match reality? Earlier in this article, we stated that many studies use achievement tests to measure student effects; however, they do not always measure the critical attributes of the practice. Goetz and LeCompte (1986)stress the importance that the constructs devised measure the categories of human experiences that occur. In the case of serving gifted students in the general-education classroom, we most likely should align the assessment to the critical attributes of the practice. The critical attributes of the practice, after all, are those we believe are influencing the experiences of gifted students. In this issue, the authors used performance-based assessment procedures and observations in the field, attempting to align these with the critical attributes of the practice.


492

/ournal for the Education of the Gifted

VanTassel-Baska et al. (1996)used performance-based assessment procedures to measure the effectiveness of a language arts curriculum unit. Two of the measures were a literary analysis/interpretation and a persuasive writing assessment. Both of these measures were performance-based: the student engaged in activities very much like those in the curriculum, and the assessments were scored using a rubric. Maker et al. (1996)used a performance-based assessment to measure students’ growth in problem-solving ability. The assessment consisted of students engaged in five problem-solving tasks in whole-group and small-group settings. In these two articles, the assessment procedures closely resembled the classroom experiences of the students. In studying practices for gifted students, researchers can improve the quality of their measurement rules by aligning the assessment to the critical attributes of the practice.

Using Technically Adequate Measures. Equally important in measuring the effects of practices is to use measures that are technically adequate for their intended purposes. If researchers are unaware of how well the data match their purposes, little faith can be placed in the results obtained and the conclusions drawn. We often associate technical adequacy with the psychometric properties of an instrument -reliability and validity. While these are certainly necessary, this perspective is too narrow in focus. This is a particularly important point when examining effects in the field, a mandatory condition for studying effective practices for gifted students in the general-education classroom. Researchers should use instruments that comprehensively describe the practice as it occurs and as others see it. The burden of proof lies with the researcher in supporting the extent to which conclusions drawn are effective representations of empirical reality (Goetz & LeCompte, 1986). It could be argued that technical adequacy may be described as a fit between what is recorded as data and what actually occurs in the setting. How do researchers ensure that this fit exists in their data? First, researchers may compare data from multiple sources or multiple methods. Second, researchers may collect their data in the field over time. Finally, researchers may compare their results among multiple investigators connected to a project or research study. Effects that are repeated and observed over a period of time increase the validity of the results. For example, in Project Mustard Seed, a variety of methods are used to collect data and corroborate findings. Data collection sources include students, teachers, administra-



493

tors, and community persons. Data are collected using structured and conversational interviews, observations, achievement tests, the Classroom Instructional Practices Scale (Johnsen, 19921, and the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (Hall, George, &. Rutherford, 1986). Each site has been visited on a weekly basis since the Spring 1994. The researchers keep detailed field notes of each visit and meet on a bimonthly basis to discuss their findings. VanTassel-Baska, et al. (1996)used multiple instruments to collect their data. Findings from the three measures corroborate one another and present more valid results. The performance-based measures were closely tied to standards of excellence that provide further evidence of technical adequacy in performance-based measures. After observations in the field, Maker et al. (1996)separated teachers into two groups- high-level and middle-level implementers of their project’s objectives. They next examined these two groups more closely to determine differences in the degree to which the effect, increased problem-solving ability, was actually occurring. These authors used multiple measures to assess students’ problemsolving ability and corroborated their findings among multiple investigators. Friedman and Lee (1996)used the modified Flanders (1970)interaction analysis categories to observe teachers in the field 15 to 17 weeks on a biweekly basis. Multiple investigators were trained in the use of the instrument and were checked for observer drift to ensure accuracy. These authors also engaged in debriefing sessions to provide further evidence of technical adequacy. By aligning the assessment to the critical attributes of the practice and using technically adequate measures, educators in gifted education will have more confidence that the new knowledge they are contributing to the field is believable and meaningful. This new knowledge provides direction for practitioners about which practices are most effective to use with gifted students in the general education classroom

Summary The intent of this issue is to increase research about practices that affect gifted and talented youth in the general-education setting. Much remains to be accomplished. As a field, we need to identify what is worthwhile to study. For too long “worthwhileness” has been determined by expediency rather than quality. What do we really want


494

\ournu1 for the Education of the Gifted

our gifted students to be doing? Do these desired practices actually relate to both short- and long-term benefits? Do the various stakeholders view the practice as worthwhile? Does the practice continue beyond the research study? The literature is also in need of studies that clearly identify the critical attributes of the practices and their effects. Identifying a model that is multifaceted and vaguely described does not enhance its implementation or its contribution to the knowledge base. Clarification of effective classroom practices will lead to improved teacher education, staff development, and follow-through activities. Unfortunately, because a practice is presented clearly does not necessarily mean that it will be implemented properly. How does the researcher know if a workshop, an instructional strategy, or a program is effective without examining the degree to which it is implemented? Effectiveness can only be determined through these observations. While this step is the most time consuming for the researcher, it is the most important in ensuring the credibility of the results. Finally, researchers must attend to the technical adequacy of the measures they are using to collect the data. Do our instruments and observations consistently measure the desired practices and results? Do they adequately describe and reflect reality? Without such relationships and reflections, changes in performance may be the result of inadequate instrumentation, researcher bias, or, worse, may even validate an ineffective practice. What is the future direction for researchers examining effective practices in the general-education setting? The articles collected in this special issue provide useful models for the type of research we need in the future. We hope that these recommendations will encourage those conducting research in this area.

References Callahan, C. M., & Caldwell, M. S. (1995).A practitioner’s guide to evaluating programs for the gifted. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children. Coleman, L. J. (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. Ellis, A., & Fouts, J. (1993).Research on educational innovations. Princeton Junction, NJ:Eye on Education.



495

Fetterman, D. (1993).Evaluate' yourself. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Flanders, N, A. (1970).Analyzing teacher behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Welsley. Friedman, R. C., & Lee, S. W. (1996).Differentiating instruction for high-achieving/gifted children in regular classrooms: A field test of three gifted-education models. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19,405-436. Fullan, M., & Miles, M. (1992).Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 744-752. Gallagher, J. J. (1994). A retrospective view: The Javits program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 95-96. Gardner, H. (1985).Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1986).Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando: Academic Press. Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1986).Measuring stages of concern about the innovation. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hansen, J. B., & Linden, K. W. (1990).Selecting instruments for identifying gifted and talented students. Roeper Review, 13(1),10-15. House, E. R., & Lapan, S. (1994).Evaluation of programs for disadvantaged gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17,441-466. Johnsen, S. K. (1992).Classroom Instructional Practices Scale. (Unpublished instrument available from author.) Johnsen, S. K., Haensly, P. A., & Ryser, G. R. (1993).Project mustard seed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986).Foundations of behavioral research. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992).Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77. 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. Rogers, K. B. (1989).A content analysis of the literature on giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 78-88. Sarason, S. (1990).The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it is too late! San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (1991).The academic acceleration of gifted children. New York: Teachers College Press.


496

lournal for the Education of the Gifted

U.S. Department of Education. (1994).Javits gifted and talented students education program: Grant projects 1992/1993 (OERI Publication No. PIP 99-1223). Washington, DC: Author. VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D.T., Hughes, C., & Boyce, L. N. (1996). A study of language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learners. lournal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 461-480.
