A Cognitive Outcomes Study to Evaluate Curriculum for the Gifted

Carter, Kyle R.

doi:10.1177/016235328601000104

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Feldhusen, Sayler, Nielsen, and Kolloff (1990) found improved selfconcept for students in a gifted program. On the other hand, Carter (1986) and Lynch and Mills (1990) found mixed results, depending on whether the outcome was reading or mathematics achievement, and VanTassel-Baska, Willis, and Meyer (1989) found mixed results depending on the type of cognitive ability being measured. Although Aldrich and Mills found consistently higher achievement, they did not find higher self-concept for treatment or control students.…”

Section: Background Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Effects of Gifted Programming in Mathematics and Reading Using the ECLS-K

Adelson

McCoach

Gavin

2012

Gifted Child Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the average effects of schools' third through fifth grade gifted programming policy in mathematics and reading on overall school achievement, on gifted students' achievement and academic attitudes and on nongifted students' achievement and academic attitudes. Data and results represent a broad, national look at school personnel-reported programming without distinction as to type, length, or degree of programming. No detrimental effects were found at the overall school level or for nongifted students. However, the results also indicated that, on average, the diverse programs reported in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1988-1989 (ECLS-K) database had no effect on gifted students' achievement or academic attitudes. Considered in light of prior research indicating benefits of specific programs and existing inconsistent policies and programs, this suggests the need for future research to determine effective program characteristics and suggests that policy makers, educators, and parents actively must seek research-based practices to use with gifted children.

show abstract

Section: Background Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Effects of Gifted Programming in Mathematics and Reading Using the ECLS-K

Adelson

McCoach

Gavin

2012

Gifted Child Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Roberts et al (1992) found that gifted students in the SEM school scored significantly higher on a higher-level-thinking test than did average-ability students. Carter (1986) also found that gifted students enrolled in a specialized program focusing on the development of higher-order thinking skills had higher achievement scores.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Specific studies that have assessed cognitive outcomes found higher achievement scores for gifted students in specialized programs. Carter (1986) compared students from three settings: a pull-out program focusing on higher-level-thinking skills, a comparison group of gifted students, and a group of non-gifted students, and found higher achievement scores for the gifted students in the pull-out program. In another study, VanTassel-Baska et al (1989) compared third- and fourth-grade children in a separate-class program for the gifted with gifted students not attending a program.…”

Section: Review Of the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of grouping and program type on scholastic and affective outcomes in the Mawhiba schools partnership initiative

Batterjee

2014

Gifted Education International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers have struggled for decades to determine whether ability grouping is helpful or harmful; however, study findings have been inconsistent. To assess the effect of grouping and program type on scholastic and affective outcomes, three grouping types (gifted separate-class enrichment, pull-out gifted enrichment, and no enrichment), three program types (gifted program, high-ability students not in a gifted program, and average students in regular classes) and a sample of 600 male students were used in this study. Results show that grouping and program type affect students’ scholastic outcomes, with gifted enrichment programs having a significant effect on student learning, and students participating in gifted programs having a significantly more positive self-perception, both scholastically and socially, than do non-participating students. The present results support the grouping of gifted students homogeneously based on cognitive ability, and reinforce the notion that affective outcomes are a complicated issue where the factors are inter-related and capable of influencing students’ perceptions in different ways.

show abstract

“…To illustrate, the author (Carter, 1985b) used a variation of the design to conduct an outcome evaluation over a curriculum on higher level thinking. Six intact third grade gifted classes from six different schools were randomly assigned to a treatment or comparison condition.…”

Section: Quasi-experimentalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation Design: Issues Confronting Evaluators of Gifted Programs

Carter

1986

Gifted Child Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How should one evaluate a program for the gifted? Unique design concerns need to be taken into account when selecting a method for assessing gifted program outcomes. The author reviews design issues and proposes creative solutions to omnipresent dilemmas facing the would-be evaluator.Educational evaluation can take on different forms depending upon the questions asked. For example, sponsors of evaluations of gifted programs might ask one or more of the following questions: &dquo;Who should be served by the program?&dquo;, &dquo;Is the curriculum consistent with the goals and objectives of gifted education?&dquo;, &dquo;Do students become more creative as a result of the program?&dquo;, and &dquo;Is the program worth the cost?&dquo; These questions represent different types of evaluations. Respectively, they are needs assessment, process evaluation, outcome evaluation and evaluation of cost effectiveness.Evaluation design refers to the procedures and conditions employed by the evaluator to collect data. Since data collection is often different across the four major types of evaluations, design issues depend upon the type of evaluation conducted. In this paper, the discussion is limited to outcome evaluations. I have selected this type of evaluation because of the current emphasis on educational outcomes (for example, see &dquo;A Nation at Risk,&dquo; 1983) and because I am an advocate of that approach (Carter and Hamilton, 1985).There are three reasons why evaluation designs must be judged against criteria different from the experimental designs in the laboratory. First, field based evaluations must be designed around administrative constraints such as time, money and logistics. These constraints restrict the evaluator's ability to manipulate and control variables. Consequently, evaluations in the school setting are not as &dquo;tight&dquo; as more traditional laboratory studies. Second, Popham (1975), points out that program evaluations are not concerned with external validity, i.e., the ability to generalize beyond the program setting. Sponsors of program :evaluations desire to know how effective &dquo;their&dquo; programs is in &dquo;their&dquo; setting. Third, it is often impossible to determine whether participant outcomes are due to the program or some other variable(s)-a matter of internal validity (Campbell and Stanley, 1963) -unless controls are imposed which ironically, create a setting that is atypical of the program. In fact, Snow (1974) argues that true program effects can only be determined when a &dquo;representative design&dquo; is employed. Snow recommends designs that are representative of the natural environment because he assumes that experimental manipulation causes the learners to act differently than they would under normal conditions. These reasons illustrate the dilemma of program evaluators. They seek designs that control extraneous variables but do not disturb the natural setting nor violate the school's administrative structure. I have yet to find a design to accomplish this goal. Howev...

show abstract

A Cognitive Outcomes Study to Evaluate Curriculum for the Gifted

Cited by 14 publications

References 10 publications

Examining the Effects of Gifted Programming in Mathematics and Reading Using the ECLS-K

Examining the Effects of Gifted Programming in Mathematics and Reading Using the ECLS-K

The effect of grouping and program type on scholastic and affective outcomes in the Mawhiba schools partnership initiative

Evaluation Design: Issues Confronting Evaluators of Gifted Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About