Gifted Child Quarterly

Volume 51 Number 3
Summer 2007 272-284
© 2007 National Association for
Gifted Children
10.1177/0016986207302722
A Study of Curriculum Effectiveness in http://gcq.sagepub.com
hosted at

Social Studies http://online.sagepub.com

Catherine A. Little
University of Connecticut
Annie Xuemei Feng
Joyce VanTassel-Baska
The College of William and Mary
Karen B. Rogers
University of New South Wales
Linda D. Avery
Private Consultant

Abstract: This quasi-experimental study examines the effects on student performance of a Javits-funded curriculum
designed to respond to the needs of high-ability students in elementary and middle school social studies. The cur-
riculum, implemented with all students in heterogeneous classrooms, addresses state standards while integrating
advanced content, higher level process emphases, and a conceptual orientation. Data collection focuses on student
performance in conceptual reasoning, critical thinking, and content learning and on teacher demonstration of specific
desired teaching behaviors. Results demonstrate significant and important differences between treatment and com-
parison groups in the area of content learning, favoring the treatment group; no significant differences are found for
the small subsample of gifted students. Subanalyses yield differential results for specific units and schools, poten-
tially indicating issues of treatment fidelity. Contextual challenges and implications of the study are discussed,
including issues related to social studies curriculum implementation and differentiation in the current standards-based
environment.

Putting the Research to Use: This study provides evidence useful in practice and in further research, in terms of
both its specific findings and the contextual issues that emerged in the implementation of the study. First, the study
supports the idea that curriculum that integrates higher level processes and specific conceptual thinking activities
with strong content may yield content gains as strong as or stronger than a more direct, knowledge-based struc-
ture for teaching to standards. In an era heavily focused on standards coverage, this finding is an important
reminder that content standards may be used as a basic frame for a larger tapestry of more complex teaching and
learning in a content area. Second, the study demonstrates that such integrated and challenging curriculum and
instruction, designed to respond to the needs of highly able learners, may also promote growth gains for students
not identified as gifted, supporting the need for high expectations for all learners. Third, the study supports claims
from the social studies literature that integration of the habits of mind of the social science disciplines is impor-
tant for content learning.
At the same time, the study reminds practitioners that although challenging curriculum designed to meet the
needs of gifted students may promote learning for nonidentified students, appropriate instructional differentiation
is still necessary to strengthen the possibility that students of varying ability levels will benefit from the learning
experience and that the challenge level for highly able students is not diluted. Focusing on a content area that often
receives limited attention and limited differentiation in the elementary and middle school years, this study sup-
ports greater research and practice attention to the needs of gifted students in their social studies learning.

Keywords: social studies; gifted; critical thinking; conceptual thinking; curriculum

272

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

C urriculum reform is a critical element of the larger
educational reform agenda and offers tremendous
potential for classroom-level impact (Cuban, 1998).
National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s
Talent (U.S. Department of Education, 1993) clearly
delineated the need for higher standards and more
powerful curriculum interventions in our schools. In an
era of high standards and ever-increasing demands for
accountability, the necessity of linking strong content
to strong learning goals to strong pedagogical practice
is paramount. However, the complexity of translating
national and state content standards into effective mod-
els for curriculum and instruction to reach a wide range
of learner abilities cannot be overstated, particularly
with regard to responding to the needs of highly able
learners.
The Center for Gifted Education at the College of
William and Mary received a grant from the Jacob K.
Javits program of the United States Department of
Education to design, develop, and field-test curriculum
units in social studies responsive to curriculum reform
recommendations and specifically targeted to high-
ability learners. Under the title “Project Phoenix,” the
grant supported curriculum development and dissem-
ination, professional development, parent/community
involvement, and data collection during a 3-year
period.
The curriculum units for Project Phoenix were
designed using the Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM;
VanTassel-Baska, 1986, 1995), organized around
advanced content, higher level processes and product
development, and concept learning. The units have
also been aligned with national standards for history
(National Center for History in the Schools, 1996) and
with the history and social science standards for the
Commonwealth of Virginia (Commonwealth of
Virginia Department of Education, 2001). Topics for
the units were selected in collaboration with teachers
and administrators from the partner school division,
and standards related to the content topics, to critical
thinking in social studies, and to historical analysis and
primary source interpretation formed a major part of
Authors’ Note: Research for this article was supported under the
Javits Act Program as administered by the U.S. Department of
Education. Portions of the findings were shared at the 2004 con-
vention of the American Educational Research Association. The
authors would like to thank all of the participants in Project
Phoenix, particularly the teachers and administrators in the
school districts implementing the curriculum and the graduate
students and Center for Gifted Education staff members who
worked tirelessly to make the project possible.
Little et al. / Curriculum Effectiveness in Social Studies
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
the curriculum framework for the series of units. Most
of the units incorporated history as the central disci-
pline of study. In an effort to reflect key principles of
the history standards, they were written with a heavy
focus on historical analysis and text interpretation,
while also incorporating interdisciplinary emphases
and an inquiry approach. Reflecting the interdiscipli-
nary nature of the various social science disciplines,
the units were designed to address connections
between history and geography, between economics
and government and between all of these and other
subject areas, including strong connections to language
arts and, where relevant, to mathematics, science, and
fine arts. These interdisciplinary connections were
emphasized through specific content applications and
through integration of the interdisciplinary concept of
“systems” as a major emphasis. Thus, the project
attempted to coalesce key understandings about effec-
tive social studies teaching with relevant understand-
ings about supporting the education of high-end
learners.
Project Phoenix was designed to demonstrate how
the development and implementation of high-powered,
interdisciplinary curriculum in social studies can raise
the threshold of performance for students at all ability
levels in the regular classroom, as well as effectively
responding to the needs of high-ability learners. By
setting high standards for curriculum content and
instructional pedagogy and by working with adminis-
trators, teachers, students, and parents to embed these
expectations in classroom practice with extensions in
the home and community, the project worked to trans-
late the key components of standards-based reform
into classroom and building-level practice.
The study centered around three major questions:
Do students exposed to a specific curriculum interven-
tion in social studies outperform similar students
not using the intervention on measures of concep-
tual and critical thinking and content learning?
Are there differences in performance between students
identified as gifted and students not identified?
Do teachers implementing the project pedagogy show
change over time in observed and self-reported
behaviors supporting high-end learning?
Review of Relevant Literature
Social Studies Standards and Habits of Mind
Representing the collection of subject areas and dis-
ciplines called “social studies” in the public schools,
273
five separate sets of national standards documents were
developed in the mid-1990s (Buckles, Schug, & Watts,
2001). Although the development efforts for some of
these standards—particularly those in history—have
been fraught with controversy (Saunders, 1996; Saxe,
1995; Whelan, 1995), several key interdisciplinary
emphases have emerged across standards documents
and thus represent central areas for curriculum devel-
opment and instructional emphasis. These areas include
the importance of critical inquiry and conceptual learn-
ing, opportunities for problem solving, emphasis on
depth over breadth, and connections to current and real-
world issues and problems (Avery & Zuo, 2003).
Standards for effective curriculum and instruction in
history in particular also reflect emphases on the mean-
ing and process of history, direct engagement with pri-
mary source material, and the use of essay writing
(Gregory, 2000; National Center for History in the
Schools, 1996). All of these standards draw on key
habits of mind of practitioners of the social science dis-
ciplines, including the following:
to analyze documents of all sorts to detect bias, weigh
evidence, and evaluate arguments;
to distinguish between fact and conjecture and between
the trivial and the consequential;
to view human subjects nonjudgmentally and with
empathy instead of present mindedness;
to recognize and analyze the interplay of change and
continuity;
to recognize the complexity of causality and avoid easy
generalizations and stereotypes when analyzing
how change occurs;
to recognize that not all problems have solutions;
to understand how people and cultures differ and what
they share;
to analyze how the actions of others, past and present,
influence our own lives; and society (Sandling,
2003, p. 221)
Although emphases on constructing meaning and
critical thinking are often highlighted as key aspects of
social studies education, conceptions of what history is
and what it means are by no means uniform among
teachers, nor is there a clear understanding of how best
to help students understand history and the other social
sciences (Barton, 1997; Evans, 1988; VanSledright,
1995). Moreover, despite recommended emphases on
social science processes and depth in learning (National
Center for History in the Schools, 1996), social studies
teachers are also influenced in their planning by
highly limited time, limited priority compared to other
274
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
content areas, and the demands of heavily fact-based
multiple choice assessments (Buckles et al., 2001;
Haas & Laughlin, 2001). Consequently, delivery of
the volume of facts and details often contained within
social studies textbooks—and some social studies
standards—often takes precedence in instructional
practice and student learning activities over broad-
based social science concepts and habits of mind.
Thus, concept-based curriculum and instruction in
social studies are crucial in making this volume of
information meaningful, to support students in the
development of useful generalizations that reflect
the larger scale of what they study (Kneip, 1989;
McKinney & Edgington, 1997; Reyes & Smith, 1983;
Shaver, 1991). In addition to a conceptual orientation
to curriculum, emphases on disciplined inquiry, criti-
cal reasoning, and conscious reflection are also
required to promote the key social science habits of
mind (Beyer, 1971; Brown, 1996; Paul, 1992;
Scheurman & Newman, 1998).
Social Studies and the ICM
The social studies processes and habits of mind noted
previously represent critical elements of curriculum and
instruction for all learners, yet they also—when com-
bined with other recommendations for differentiation—
can form a foundation for effective curriculum for
high-ability learners. The ICM (VanTassel-Baska, 1986,
1995) provides the basis for a deep integration of the
elements of conceptual understanding and critical rea-
soning with advanced content in the social studies.
Curriculum and instruction designed within the ICM
framework engage students in actively exploring, ana-
lyzing, and discussing advanced materials and topics
through structured activities and questions, whereby
they are encouraged to reflect on central ideas within a
specific context, on connections to broad concepts that
cut across time and across discipline, and on connec-
tions to students’ own lives and circumstances. These
emphases on active engagement, challenge, and devel-
oping meaning reflect key characteristics of “powerful
teaching” identified by the National Council for the
Social Studies (NCSS, 1994). By not only providing
support for the social science habits of mind but also
using advanced and complex content, the model also
allows the curriculum to be appropriately differentiated
for high-end learners, reflecting research supporting
inquiry learning and curricular differentiation as effec-
tive practices for this population (Hertzog, Klein, &
Katz, 1999; Shore & Delcourt, 1996).
Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 3
 Previous curriculum work using the ICM has Table 1
demonstrated the effectiveness of high-powered cur- Student Participation by Unit
riculum targeted to advanced learners on student learn- Unit Treatment Group N Comparison Group N
ing in language arts (VanTassel-Baska, Johnson,
Hughes, & Boyce, 1996; VanTassel-Baska, Zuo, Avery, Civilizations 81 34
Colonial 160 29
& Little, 2002) and in science (VanTassel-Baska, Bass,
1920s 241 10
Reis, Poland, & Avery, 1998). In these studies, students Civil War 88 48
who engaged in curriculum integrating advanced con- Government 21 30
tent with higher-level processes and interdisciplinary
themes demonstrated significant learning gains over
similar students not engaged in the curriculum. Gains
were consistent for males and females and across dif- critical elements of the change process all represented
ferent grouping arrangements. foundational aspects of the research and development
efforts related to Project Phoenix. Results related to
Professional Development student learning and teacher practice are reported in
the pages that follow.
Educational research is increasingly demonstrating
the role of the teacher as the most powerful influence
on learning (Sanders, 2001; Sanders & Rivers, 1996), Method
and effective professional development represents an
important component of strengthening that influences The study used a quasi-experimental design mode
in positive ways. Within the field of gifted education (Campbell & Stanley, 1969) to investigate the effects
specifically, researchers have found that teachers who of the curriculum treatment on gifted and nongifted
have engaged in learning experiences themselves students across elementary and middle school grades.
related to the characteristics and learning needs of This study reports on student results from the final
gifted students, as well as how to address those needs year of the 3-year project and on a cross-year analy-
in the classroom setting, are more effective with this sis of teacher practices for the subsample who partic-
population than those who have received no training ipated across 3 years.
(Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994). In social studies educa-
tion, a recent survey of 98 elementary teachers who are Sample
members of the NCSS indicated that the need for more
The student sample consisted of 1,200 students in
staff development in social studies was a key concern
Grades 2 to 8 across nine schools in one urban school
among both novice and veteran teachers, a concern
district. The district is considered to be an “Enterprise
rated second only to the perceived lack of priority
Zone,” with high populations of minority and disad-
given to social studies programs (Haas & Laughlin,
vantaged students. The sample was nearly evenly dis-
2001). In the same study, another frequently cited con-
tributed by gender, with 597 boys (50.7%) and 580
cern was a need for more curriculum development
girls (49.3%). Of the 1,200 students, 949 (79.1%)
work in social studies, with corresponding professional
were in the treatment group and 251 (20.9%) in the
development around the relevant social studies content
comparison group, with similar gender distributions
and teaching strategies.
across the two groups. Forty-one students (3.4%)
The role of teacher attitudes and beliefs about
were identified as gifted from the sample; thirty-five
student learning as related to specific teaching prac-
of these were in the treatment group. Within the treat-
tices is also significant as a catalyst for implementing
ment group, sample size by unit varied from 21
reform in schools. Research efforts have demon-
students to 241 students, as noted in Table 1.
strated that changes in teacher attitudes and beliefs
Six of the 16 teachers involved in the third year of
occur not after professional development alone but
project implementation had been involved across all 3
rather after the demonstration of changes in student
years; this subgroup of six teachers formed the sam-
learning following changes in classroom practice
ple for the study reported here.
(Guskey, 2000).
These elements of reflecting strong content and
habits of mind in the subject area studied, responding
Curriculum Treatment
to the learning needs of high-ability learners, and sup- Five units, developed under Javits funding, were
porting teachers in their own growth and reflection as used as the curriculum treatment in the study. The

Little et al. / Curriculum Effectiveness in Social Studies 275

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

curriculum framework for the units was developed using
the ICM, incorporating goals addressing advanced con-
tent, higher level processes, and abstract concepts. The
five goals for the units were as follows:
to develop understanding of the concept of systems and
of structure, function, and pattern as key systems
elements;
to develop reasoning skills with application to social
studies;
to develop interpersonal and social group process skills;
to develop skills in historical analysis and primary
source interpretation; and
to develop knowledge and understanding around unit-
specific content goals (each unit identified a con-
tent goal and outcomes related to understanding
and using key concepts and information for the cul-
ture and/or time period under study).
As discussed previously, the unit developers drew
and expanded on existing state and national standards
in developing the framework and the units them-
selves. Grade-level content emphases were selected,
based on the Virginia social studies standards; devel-
opers then gave attention to advancing these content
topics for high-ability learners through the depth and
complexity with which the topics would be addressed
and the challenge level of the resources used. In addi-
tion, each unit incorporated a heavy emphasis on the
reasoning process (Paul, 1992) and on applying ele-
ments of that process to the study of primary source
documents. Primary sources were embedded as major
readings and information resources across all units,
again reflecting discipline-based standards and the
need for challenge to support differentiation for high-
ability learners. Specific teaching models related to
reasoning and primary source analysis were incorpo-
rated across all units. In addition, the units used the
concept of systems as a central organizer, applying a
definitional model and concept generalizations to
systems ranging from the classroom to systems of
government to systems of civilization. This concep-
tual organizer was intended to support differentiation
based on depth and also to promote interdisciplinary
connections within the social studies and between
social studies and other subject areas.
Each unit was designed to represent roughly 9 to
12 weeks of social studies instruction, determined
based on a review of planning blueprints used by the
school district involved. Units contained 18 to 25
lessons, including specific lessons introducing and
practicing key teaching and learning models, explor-
ing and discussing key content topics through these
276
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
models, and creating linkages across unit goals. Thus,
for example, a lesson might review the context under
study, introduce a relevant primary source document
for analysis, and follow the analysis with a set of dis-
cussion questions to explore how the document
reflected the historical context and also key general-
izations about the central concept of systems.
The five units implemented in the study, with their
intended grade levels, were as follows:
Systems of Civilization (Grades 2 to 3)
Building a New System: Colonial America 1607-1790
(Grades 4 to 5)
A System in Conflict: The American Civil War (Grades
5 to 6)
The 1920s and 1930s in America: A System of Tensions
(Grades 6 to 7)
The Road to the White House: The American System of
Representational Democracy (Grades 6 to 8)
Instrumentation
The instruments used in the curriculum effective-
ness study included three assessments for students: a
measure of students’ conceptual thinking (conceptual
thinking test; CNTA), a measure of critical thinking
(critical thinking test; CRTA), and unit-specific con-
tent assessments. A final instrument was a classroom
observation form (COF), relating to the research
question about teaching behaviors.
CNTA and CRTA. The assessments of conceptual
thinking and critical thinking, designed by the project’s
external evaluator, each consisted of three multipart
questions. Items for the CNTA included emphasis on
classification of concepts, identification of concept-
relevant characteristics, and specific application of the
concept of systems. For example, one item presents a list
of food items and asks students to group the items and
assign categorical names to the groups; another asks
students to read informational text about systems and
then determine and explain whether given examples are
or are not examples of systems. These emphases reflect
literature on conceptual thinking (Ehrenberg, 1981;
Taba, 1962) and the emphasis in the curriculum inter-
vention on the concept of systems. In initial piloting,
test-retest reliability during a 4-month period using
Pearson Product Moment correlation reached .62. Items
for the CRTA emphasized use of evidence to draw con-
clusions and suggest implications, reflecting elements of
the Paul (1992) model of reasoning and other work on
applying logical rules of reasoning in everyday life (e.g.,
Halpern, 2003). For example, in one item, students are
Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 3
given a rule and then asked to apply the rule in making
a decision; another item asks students to provide reasons
for and against a given claim. Test-retest reliability dur-
ing a 4-month period was moderate in the pilot stage
(r = .50). Project staff reviewed both tests before and
after the piloting, making revisions each time based on
review against the literature on critical and conceptual
thinking and on pilot data. Three forms of each test were
developed, one at each of the levels of primary, interme-
diate, and middle school. At each level, each test
included three multipart items, as noted; complexity was
added to the tasks with advancement of grade level
through the consideration of additional variables within
the problems. Item analyses on both tests demonstrated
sufficient ceiling on most items for growth to be
measured.
Content assessments. The content assessments
were designed by each of the unit developers to
accompany the specific units. They include both mul-
tiple choice and short-answer questions specifically
tied to the content objectives of each unit, which were
derived from state-level standards of learning in the
state in which the project was conducted. The tests
ranged from 15 to 25 items, depending on grade level,
but all had a maximum of 75 points as a score. Items
were scored as right or wrong or else given points
against a rubric, depending on type of item.
COF. The COF was developed and validated in the
first year of the project, with interrater reliability ini-
tially established at a median kappa of .63 (VanTassel-
Baska & Avery, 2001) and since reevaluated at .82
based on use in subsequent studies (Feng, 2001). Three
experts in gifted education and one instructional coor-
dinator in general education reviewed the 40 items of
the form for content validity, obtaining an average rat-
ing of 2.9, using a scale from 1 to 3, with 3 being the
highest. Content validity was established based on a .96
agreement of expert review (Avery, 1999). The purpose
of the form is to note the demonstration of specific
teaching behaviors reflecting general instructional prac-
tice as well as recommendations for teaching high-
ability learners. The form consists of 40 behaviors,
grouped into the following nine categories: curriculum
planning, expectations for learning, accommodating
individual differences, curriculum delivery features,
general teaching strategies, critical thinking, problem
solving, metacognition, and extensions.
To use the COF, trained observers scripted what they
saw occurring in the classroom and then indicated a
Little et al. / Curriculum Effectiveness in Social Studies
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
“yes” or “no” response for the presence of each of the
behaviors. A self-report version of the form was also
used in the study; on this form, teachers responded
“yes” or “no” to each of the behaviors with regard to the
same lesson observed by project staff.
Procedures
All teachers involved in the project as treatment-
group teachers participated in 1 to 4 days of profes-
sional development before and during implementation
of the intervention. Teachers involved in the project
throughout multiple years received additional pro-
fessional development each year of involvement.
Professional development workshops consisted of the
following key features: overview of the curriculum
model and relationship to reform principles and content
standards, demonstration and practice with key teach-
ing models used in units, “walk-through” of unit with
attention to key features and resources needed, and dis-
cussion of various implementation expectations and
questions.
The CNTA and CRTA were administered by project
staff in both treatment and comparison classes prior to
the beginning of unit implementation in the treatment
classes. Teachers in both groups administered the
content assessments. Following test administration,
treatment group teachers conducted 20 to 25 hours of
instruction using the relevant unit for their grade level.
During this period, teacher observations were con-
ducted in treatment classes, with two observations per
teacher, to document specific teaching behaviors.
Observations were conducted by trained project staff,
and teachers were asked to complete a self-report form
immediately following the lesson observed. The obser-
vations generally lasted about 30 to 45 minutes, and
external observers followed up the observations with
informal interviews to clarify any questions.
At the conclusion of unit implementation, teachers
in both treatment and comparison classes again
administered the content assessments, and project
staff returned to administer the CNTA and CRTA. In
addition, teachers submitted log notes and met with a
project staff member to discuss details of implemen-
tation and report on lessons implemented.
Tests were scored by project staff members who
had received training in the scoring protocol and were
supervised during initial efforts to ensure reliability
in the scoring process. Observation scores were com-
puted by adding the items noted as present in each of
the nine categories.
277
Limitations of the Study
Several limitations evolved during the implementa-
tion of the study that must be considered in terms of
analyzing results. First, although the overall sample size
included a large number of students, the number of
identified gifted students was quite small, representing
less than 4% of the total sample. Naturally, in any study
conducted in heterogeneous classroom settings, the
gifted students in the sample are likely to represent a
minority; however, the small size in this study and the
spread of the students across schools, grade levels, and
units prevent any conclusions regarding differential
effects for identified and nonidentified students.
Furthermore, there was a large difference in size between
the treatment group and the comparison group, also sug-
gesting a need for caution in interpreting results. In
addition, validity and reliability evidence on the student
assessments was limited in strength, reflecting some of
the challenges of assessing higher level thinking skills
in younger children; the instruments themselves may
have been a contributing factor to the small size or lack
of apparent group differences.
Other notable limitations in the study related to
teacher attrition and the implementation process. In the
first year of the study, 26 teachers began implementa-
tion of the units; however, by the third year, only six of
this group remained, and the total number of teachers
involved in year three was 16. Teacher attrition
occurred as a result of a variety of influences. The
study occurred during a time of major transition within
the district and state, with changes to the standards and
an increase in state assessments and local accountabil-
ity. Although the study was conducted in grade levels
in which the state testing did not occur, overall changes
to the culture of the district in response to the assess-
ment program caused some teachers and principals to
withdraw from the study to address the standards in a
more step-by-step, content delivery format instead of
in the integrated approach of the treatment curriculum.
Other teachers withdrew from the study because they
changed grade levels or schools. This attrition among
teachers influenced the study in several ways, limiting
the degree to which multiyear results could be ana-
lyzed and also the investigation of Research Question
3, related to teacher change over time. Furthermore,
observations and ongoing interactions with the project
teachers demonstrated inconsistencies in implementa-
tion, with some cases of incomplete implementation
and other cases of lack of fidelity to the curriculum
guidelines as written and shared in the professional
278
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
development sessions. These issues around implemen-
tation suggest a need for caution in interpreting results,
while also reflecting key concerns in any study imple-
mented in the real-world context of schools.
Data Analysis
Analyses of student and teacher data from the pro-
ject were done initially by the external evaluator and
extended by the Center for Gifted Education’s research
coordinator. The major analytical method used in this
study was the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).
Several considerations guided the choice of separate
ANCOVAs in lieu of multivariate statistics: (a) The
researchers intended to examine the effect of the cur-
riculum intervention on each of the dependent mea-
sures respectively; (b) although there were significant
correlations (p < .05) between the three dependent
measures (i.e., conceptual reasoning, critical thinking,
content knowledge), the correlation coefficients (.39 to
.48) were much lower than the threshold of a correla-
tion of .90, at which statistical problems will typically
occur because of multicollinearity (Tabachnick &
Fiddell, 1989); and (c) Bonferroni corrections were
used to reduce the Type I error rate because of multi-
ple analysis of covariances.
Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were conducted
on the results for the three student tests to investigate
differences in posttest performance between the treat-
ment and comparison groups for the whole sample
(Research Question 1), controlling for pretest differ-
ences, and for treatment effect within the group identi-
fied as gifted and the group not identified, respectively
(Research Question 2). Bonferroni adjustment was con-
ducted to reduce the Type I error rate. The overall alpha
level of .05 was separately specified for the tests to
answer Research Question 1 (.02) and Research
Question 2 (.03). Therefore, the alpha level specified
for the three ANCOVA tests for Question 1 was set at
.02/3 = .007; the alpha level specified for the six
ANCOVA tests to answer Question 2 was set at .03/6 =
.005.
Additional ANCOVAs were conducted to examine
treatment effect based on school and unit to explore
potential differences related to the groups of students,
the teaching context, and the specific intervention used.
Because these tests are of an exploratory nature in this
study, no Bonferroni correction of the alpha level was
used to reduce the likelihood of evoking Type II error.
Because of the low number of participating teachers
in all three years of the project (N = 6), only descriptive
Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 3
 Table 2
Pre- and Posttest Means and Standard Deviations by Condition
Treatment Comparison

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

Instrument N M SD M SD N M SD M SD

CNTA 589 11.1 4.7 13.2 4.5 139 11.5 4.6 12.6 4.5
CRTA 563 8.1 2.1 8.9 2.3 141 7.4 1.8 8.7 2.2
Content knowledge 276 18.2 13.7 28.3 15.1 63 10.5 7.7 12.9 8.6
Note: CNTA = conceptual thinking test; CRTA = critical thinking test.

Table 3
One-Way ANCOVA Conducted for Whole Sample
Dependent Variable N df F Significance Effect Size (η2)

Post Concept reasoning 728 1 5.39 .020 .007

Post Critical thinking 704 1 .59 .444 .001
Post Content knowledge 339 1 42.29* .000 .11
*p < .001.

Table 4
One-Way ANCOVA Conducted for Identified GT and Non-GT Students
Group Dependent Variable N df F Significance Effect Size (η2)

GT Post Concept reasoning 31 1 .43 .518 .020

Post Critical thinking 26 1 .05 .829 .002
Post Content knowledge 12 1 .78 .400 .080
Non-GT Post Concept reasoning 697 1 4.63 .032 .007
Post Critical thinking 678 1 .47 .492 .001
Post Content knowledge 327 1 41.57* .000 .114
Note: GT = gifted.
*p < .005.

statistics were used to examine patterns of change in the
six teachers’ instructional practices against the nine cat-
egories of teaching behaviors delineated in the COF.
Results
Pre- and post-assessment means for the treatment
and comparison groups on all three measures are
given in Table 2. ANCOVA tests were run to examine
differences between the treatment and comparison
students’ post-assessment scores in concept reason-
ing, critical thinking, and content knowledge, con-
trolling their initial differences using pre-assessment
scores. As Table 3 summarizes, statistically signifi-
cant differences in students’ post-assessment scores
were registered in content knowledge (p < .007),
favoring the treatment group. Using eta squared as the
index for effect size, the treatment effect was moder-
ate in content knowledge (.11).1 No statistically sig-
nificant differences were found in concept reasoning
and critical thinking between the two groups.
Additional ANCOVAs were performed to examine
the treatment effect for identified gifted students and
nonidentified students, respectively. Table 4 summa-
rizes the results. For the gifted students, no signifi-
cant differences were detected between the treatment
and comparison group in any of the three areas. It
should be noted that this result was affected by the
limited data available from gifted students (N < 31)
for the analyses. For nongifted students, statistically
significant differences were found in students’
posttest scores in content knowledge, favoring the
treatment group (p < .005). The effect sizes, using eta

Little et al. / Curriculum Effectiveness in Social Studies 279

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

 Table 5
One-Way ANCOVAs Conducted by School
School Dependent Variable N df F Significance Effect Size (η2)

School 1 (elementary) Post Concept reasoning 50 1 .06 .81 .001

Post Critical thinking 50 1 .02 .89 .000
Post Content knowledge 45 1 8.11** .00 .162
School 2 (elementary) Post Concept reasoning 108 1 .33 .57 .003
Post Critical thinking 109 1 5.27* .02 .047
School 3 (middle) Post Concept reasoning 138 1 .32 .57 .002
Post Critical thinking 139 1 2.83 .10 .020
Post Content knowledge 46 1 70.16* .00 .620
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 6
One-Way ANCOVAs Conducted by Unit
Unit Dependent Variable N df F Significance Effect Size (η2)

Civilization Post Concept reasoning 115 1 0.00 .98 .000

Post Critical thinking 115 1 2.26 .14 .020
Post Content knowledge 84 1 9.77** .002 .108
Colonial Post Concept reasoning 186 1 3.35 .07 .018
Post Critical thinking 189 1 2.00 .16 .011
Post Content knowledge 133 1 3.43 .07 .026
Civil War Post Concept reasoning 135 1 0.96 .33 .007
Post Critical thinking 136 1 2.52 .12 .019
Post Content knowledge 91 1 62.89** .00 .420
Government Post Concept reasoning 51 1 0.27 .61 .006
Post Critical thinking 51 1 6.37* .02 .117
*p < .05. **p < .01.

squared, was moderate (.11). No significant differ-
ences were found in concept reasoning and critical
thinking between the treatment and comparison
group, with their initial differences controlled.
ANCOVAs were also conducted to explore treatment
effect by school. Four schools hosted both treatment and
comparison students; however, no post-assessment data
were available for one participating school. Thus, the
school-level ANCOVAs were conducted for the three
schools for which both pre- and post-assessment data
were available. Table 5 presents the results. A statis-
tically significant treatment effect was found in
students’ post-assessment in content knowledge in
two schools, favoring the treatment group; the effect
sizes were large (eta squared = .16 and .62, respec-
tively), indicating educational importance as well as
statistical significance. At one school (School 2), a
statistically significant difference was found in
students’ critical thinking post-assessment, favoring
the comparison group, with a moderate effect size. No
statistically significant differences were found between
treatment and comparison students’ post-assessment
in concept reasoning.
Further ANCOVAs were performed to examine the
treatment effect for four of the units administered.
Treatment effect could not be measured for the fifth
unit (The 1920s), as data were incomplete for one or
the other group on all measures. Table 6 shows that sta-
tistically significant differences were found in
students’ posttest performance in content knowledge
within two unit groups, Civilization and Civil War,
favoring the treatment group. The implementation of
both units also resulted in moderate to large effect sizes
(eta squared results were .11 and .42, respectively),
indicating the differences between treatment and com-
parison groups had practical importance. For students
who were exposed to the Government unit, statistically
significant differences were also found in their
post-assessment in critical thinking, favoring the treat-
ment group. The effect size using eta squared reached
.12, indicating that the magnitude of treatment
students’ gains in critical thinking was fairly large and

280 Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 3

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

 Table 7
Continuing Teachers’ Instructional Behaviors: Years 1 to 3
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

COF Categories Max. Score M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Planning 3 2.50 0.77 2.25 0.69 2.50 0.84 — — 2.33 0.52 2.17 0.98
Expectations 3 2.30 0.88 2.75 0.61 3.00 0.00 — — 3.00 0.00 2.17 0.98
Accommodating 5 2.33 0.98 2.33 0.61 3.17 0.75 — — 3.67 1.03 3.17 1.17
individual
differences
Curriculum 3 1.33 0.98 1.75 0.88 2.50 0.84 — — 2.17 0.75 1.83 0.98
delivery
features
General strategies 9 3.83 2.70 4.42 0.86 5.50 1.22 — — 6.33 1.51 4.67 2.88
Critical thinking 5 2.25 1.13 2.50 0.63 3.00 1.10 — — 4.00 2.00 2.33 1.03
Problem solving 6 1.58 1.16 2.25 0.52 2.50 1.64 — — 1.00 1.10 0.83 0.98
Metacognition 3 0.58 1.02 1.25 0.88 0.16 0.40 — — 1.50 1.05 0.67 0.52
Extensions 3 0.17 0.26 0.33 0.61 0.17 0.41 — — 0.33 0.52 0.17 0.41
Total 40 16.80 8.05 19.83 2.48 22.50 2.81 24.30 5.61 20.17 7.36
Note: COF = classroom observation form.

educationally meaningful. No significant differences
were found between treatment and comparison
students who used the Colonial unit. No treatment
effect was detected in conceptual reasoning for
students in these four units.
Teacher Results
Six teachers, out of an original sample of 26,
remained in Project Phoenix for the 3 years of imple-
mentation. These six teachers were all female and var-
ied in age between younger than 25 and older than
50. Four of these teachers taught second graders
(Civilizations unit) for the 3 years, and two teachers
taught fourth and fifth graders (Colonial unit). All of
the teachers held a BA or BS, and one held a master’s
degree. All of them reported having taken at least six
credits of graduate coursework, except the youngest
teacher, who had taken only one graduate course; none
of them had taken any courses in gifted education.
Their teaching experience ranged from 3 years to more
than 20 years. All teachers had received at least 5 days
of training related to the project curriculum, with the
majority of the training conducted in Year 1 and shorter
follow-up sessions conducted in the subsequent years
of the project.
Three years of observation data for the six teachers
were available for analysis. In Year 1 of the project,
four observations were conducted for each of these
teachers, with two (pre-observations) conducted
before the implementation of the curriculum but
after the training workshop on how to use the curricu-
lum; two observations (post-observations) followed
during the implementation of the unit. For analysis
purposes, the two pre-observations scores for the par-
ticipants were averaged as a Year 1 pre-observation
score; the two post-observation scores were averaged
as a Year 1 post-observation score. In Year 2 of the
project, only the observation data collected before
the implementation of the unit in that year were
available for analysis. In Year 3 of the project, two
observations were conducted separately near the
beginning and near the end of implementation.
Because of the small number of cases available for
analysis (N = 6) for the teacher behavior data, descrip-
tive statistics were used to document these six
teachers’ instructional practice changes from Year 1 to
Year 3 implementation. Table 7 illustrates means and
standard deviations of instructional behaviors against
the nine behavioral categories. The results showed that
there was a consistent pattern of improvement in eight
out of the nine categories from initial observations
to later observations in Year 1 implementation; this
increasing behavioral pattern continued from Year 1 to
Year 2 implementation, as recorded by external obser-
vation results during that year. From Year 2 observa-
tion (pre-observation only) to Year 3 pre-observation,

Little et al. / Curriculum Effectiveness in Social Studies 281

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

the instructional improvement continued in the area of
accommodation for individual differences, general
teaching strategies, critical thinking strategies,
metacognition, and extensions; however, observation
rating in the second observation of Year 3 implementa-
tion, on average, decreased from the first observation
in the same year, particularly in the area of general
teaching strategies, critical thinking, metacoginition,
and extensions. The data provided evidence that these
six teachers have had ongoing positive change in
instructional behavior during a 3-year period, with the
last semester of the implementation as an exception. It
is unclear from the limited data what might have
caused a decreased level of instructional practices in
the second observation of Year 3 implementation. The
limited number of cases with 3 years’ data prevented
the authors from making any generalizations.
Discussion
The implementation of the curriculum intervention
resulted in significant treatment effect for students in
the area of content knowledge, supporting the potential
of the curriculum to support student growth in this
area. Subanalyses demonstrated statistically significant
treatment effects for given units and at given schools,
suggesting potential differential effects of the units
and/or differential degrees of implementation. These
results bear further investigation in future studies
related to the curriculum, especially given the disparity
in sample size between the treatment and comparison
groups in this study. Results related to student perfor-
mance on the conceptual reasoning and critical think-
ing assessment are less positive for the project; they
suggest the need for further investigation of how the
curriculum may or may not be supporting these areas
as measured by the instruments. Moreover, given the
somewhat low reliabilities on the CNTA and CRTA,
further investigation and development of the instru-
ments themselves may offer a greater understanding of
any effects in these areas.
Given the limited number of gifted students in the
overall sample, generalizations related to effectiveness
with that population are problematic. However, the evi-
dent growth gains for students not identified as gifted
are a promising indication of the effectiveness of using
curriculum designed for high-ability learners with a
broader population of students. Further investigation to
determine how treatment effect may relate to fidelity of
implementation, differences among the units, or devel-
opmental differences in students is warranted.
282
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
Although several results were positive in terms of
demonstrating learning gains for students, the study
highlights several areas of concern and caution in
implementing a curriculum designed for use with
high-ability learners yet implemented with all learn-
ers. First, there is a clear need to ensure fidelity of
implementation in classrooms. Teachers are not
socialized to implement packaged curriculum, which
results in fragmented learning. This “habit of prac-
tice” needs to change to ensure student growth in crit-
ical areas. Only in the final year of the project,
reported here, were we able to see teachers approach-
ing the prescribed minimum of 20 hours of unit imple-
mentation deemed necessary for treatment fidelity. In
earlier years of the project, only 6 to 14 hours of
implementation occurred, resulting in no important
student growth gains. Furthermore, given the findings
related to limited growth gains for gifted students
involved in the project, there is a need to explore sev-
eral key questions, including whether modifications
made to “fit” the curriculum to a given classroom
distort the units’ embedded differentiation for high-
ability learners, whether whole class delivery inter-
feres in some way with advanced learners’ growth,
and whether teacher effectiveness has a disproportion-
ate influence on gifted student learning.
The professional development model employed in
the project, in conjunction with the curriculum itself,
appeared to affect teaching practice positively
throughout the 3 years in heterogeneous classrooms
by enhancing greater use of research-based practices
and also increasing teachers’ accommodation to indi-
vidual differences. However, the limited size of the
teacher sample, resulting from attrition and various
contextual issues over the duration of the project, also
suggests caution in drawing conclusions from the
results of this aspect of the study.
Implications
The study suggests the need for more research on
student learning in social studies based on grouping
assignment. It is not clear whether gifted students
would have grown more in a classroom of like-ability
peers in which clustering took place rather than in the
heterogeneous classroom model used in this study.
Larger samples of both teachers and gifted students
would also strengthen the interpretation of results in
the areas of student learning and teacher change.
It is notable that the results of the study revealed
significant treatment effects in the area of content
knowledge, which was the area most common
Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 3
between treatment and comparison groups. All
students involved in the project were subject to the
same content standards of learning. The curriculum
intervention approached the standards in a different
way, linked with specific instruction in the areas of
concept development and reasoning, and the treat-
ment group demonstrated greater gains in their con-
tent knowledge. Although the differential size of the
treatment and comparison groups and some of the
other limitations previously noted indicate the need
for cautious interpretation of results, this finding is
still important in an era of standards-based teaching
and testing. The results bear the implication that
teaching from an integrated curricular framework that
embeds attention to the standards within a structure
focused on development of higher level thinking and
concept development may yield content gains as
strong as or stronger than a more direct, knowledge-
based structure for teaching the standards.
A third implication of the study rests with the need
for a system of monitoring teacher classroom behavior
rather than relying on self-report of strategy use.
Earlier findings demonstrating that teachers rated their
behaviors significantly higher than trained observers
suggest a disparity in perception that skews the picture
of what implemented practice is. The study also sug-
gests an uneven pattern of development across years in
respect to teacher growth and change in behaviors. If
we are to understand how reform is really working, we
need an ongoing record of teacher change and a clear
response to that record of change. Moreover, to support
ongoing school reforms, valid and reliable educational
research, and consistent services for students, educa-
tional leaders and researchers need to address the issue
of teacher attrition from research projects as a major
consideration in embarking on any study.
Implementing an innovation in schools is a difficult
task for many reasons, including teacher and principal
attrition, teacher acceptance and support, administrator
support, the climate for change, other competing pro-
jects, and the threat of state testing. Without adequate
levers to accomplish specific changes, meaningful
institutional change is not possible in many schools
and classrooms despite the valiant efforts of all
involved. Project Phoenix has yielded important
insights on the realities of that struggle for effective
implementation of curricular innovations in schools.
Note
1. Cohen (1988) provided rules of thumb for effect sizes using
eta squared: .01 = small, .06 = medium, and .14 = large.
Little et al. / Curriculum Effectiveness in Social Studies
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
References
Avery, L. D. (1999). Teacher efficacy and behavior: Their rela-
tionship and impact on student learning. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, The College of William and Mary,
Williamsburg, VA.
Avery, L. D., & Zuo, L. (2003). Selecting resources and materi-
als for high-ability learners. In J. VanTassel-Baska & C. A.
Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learn-
ers (pp. 259-277). Waco, TX: Prufrock.
Barton, K. C. (1997). “Bossed around by the queen”: Elementary
students’ understanding of individuals and institutions in
history. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12, 290-314.
Beyer, B. K. (1971). Inquiry in the social studies classroom: A
strategy for teaching. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Brown, R. H. (1996). Learning how to learn: The Amherst project
and history education in the schools. The Social Studies, 87,
267-273.
Buckles, S., Schug, M. C., & Watts, M. (2001). A national survey
of state assessment practices in the social studies. The Social
Studies, 92, 141-146.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1969). Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Education. (2001).
History and social science standards of learning for Virginia
public schools. Richmond, VA: Author.
Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform
success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99, 453-477.
Ehrenberg, S. D. (1981). Concept learning: How to make it hap-
pen in the classroom. Educational Leadership, 39(1), 36-43.
Evans, R. W. (1988). Lessons from history: Teacher and student
conceptions of the meaning of history. Theory and Research
in Social Education, 16, 203-225.
Feng, A. X. (2001). Technical report on interrater reliability of
the Classroom Observation Scale. Williamsburg, VA: Center
for Gifted Education.
Gregory, T. (2000). Social studies curricula for gifted learners in
elementary and middle school. Unpublished master’s thesis,
The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haas, M. E., & Laughlin, M. A. (2001). A profile of elementary
social studies teachers and classrooms. Social Education, 65,
122-126.
Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to
critical thinking (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained
and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 38, 115-123.
Hertzog, N. B., Klein, M. M., & Katz, L. G. (1999). Hypothesizing
and theorizing: Challenge in an early childhood curriculum.
Gifted and Talented International, 14, 38-49.
Kneip, W. (1989). Social studies within a global education. Social
Education, 53, 399-403.
McKinney, C. W., & Edgington, W. D. (1997). Issues related to
teaching generalizations in elementary social studies. The
Social Studies, 88, 78-81.
National Center for History in the Schools. (1996). National stan-
dards for history. Los Angeles: Author.
283
National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of
excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington,
DC: Author.
Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: What every person needs to
survive in a rapidly changing world. Rohnert Park, CA:
Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Reyes, D. J., & Smith, R. B. (1983). The role of concept learning
in social studies textbook comprehension: A brief analysis.
The Social Studies, 7, 85-88.
Sanders, W. L. (2001, June). The impact of teaching on student
achievement. Paper presented at the William and Mary School
Leadership Institute, Williamsburg, VA.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects
of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville:
University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment
Center.
Sandling, M. M. (2003). Adapting social studies curricula for
high-ability learners. In J. VanTassel-Baska & C. A. Little
(Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners
(pp. 219-254). Waco, TX: Prufrock.
Saunders, R. M. (1996). National standards for United States
history. Social Studies, 87, 63-67.
Saxe, D. W. (1995). The national history standards: Time for
common sense. Social Education, 60, 44-48.
Scheurman, G., & Newman, F. M. (1998). Authentic intellectual
work in social studies: Putting performance before pedagogy.
Social Education, 62, 23-25.
Shaver, J. P. (Ed.). (1991). Handbook of research on social stud-
ies teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.
Shore, B. M., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (1996). Effective curricular
and program practices in gifted education and the interface
with general education. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 20, 138-154.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development, theory, and practice.
New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fiddell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate
statistics. New York: Harper & Row.
U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case
for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: Author.
VanSledright, B. A. (1995). “I don’t remember—the ideas are all
jumbled in my head”: Eighth graders’ reconstructions of colo-
nial American history. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,
10, 317-345.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instruc-
tional models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly,
30, 164-169.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1995). The development of talent through
curriculum. Roeper Review, 18, 98-102.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Avery, L. D. (2001). Investigating the
impact of gifted education: Evaluation at state and local
levels: Problems with traction. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 25, 153-176.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G. M., Reis, R. R., Poland, D. L., &
Avery, L. D. (1998). A national pilot study of science curriculum
284
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
effectiveness for high-ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly,
42, 200-221.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D. T., Hughes, C., & Boyce, L. N.
(1996). A study of language arts curriculum effectiveness with
gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19,
461-480.
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.
Whelan, M. (1995). Right for the wrong reasons: National history
standards. Social Education, 60, 55-57.
Catherine A. Little is an assistant professor in educational psy-
chology specializing in gifted and talented education at the
University of Connecticut. She previously served as a visiting
assistant professor in gifted education at The College of William
and Mary and as a curriculum coordinator at the Center for Gifted
Education there. She received her PhD in educational policy, plan-
ning, and leadership from William and Mary. Her research interests
include professional development, teacher talent development, cur-
riculum differentiation, and perfectionism.
Annie Xuemei Feng is the research and evaluation director of the
Center for Gifted Education at The College of William and Mary.
Her research interests include curriculum effectiveness studies,
program evaluation research, gender-related studies, and cross-
cultural research.
Joyce VanTassel-Baska is The Jody and Layton Smith Professor
of Education and executive director of the Center for Gifted
Education at The College of William and Mary, where she has
developed a graduate program and a research and development
center in gifted education. Her major research interests include the
talent development process and effective curricular interventions
with the gifted, and she has received several Javits grants for
research and development work on curriculum. She is past presi-
dent of the Association for the Gifted of the Council for
Exceptional Children, and she is currently president of the National
Association for Gifted Children.
Karen B. Rogers is currently the director of research at the
Gifted Education Research, Resource, and Information Centre at
the University of New South Wales. She is a leading authority on
the development of differentiated curriculum for gifted and tal-
ented students. She has worked extensively with schools on the
development of programs of identification, curriculum differenti-
ation, and evaluation in gifted education. She has served as the
evaluator for a number of Javits grants, including several at the
Center for Gifted Education at William and Mary.
Linda D. Avery received her PhD from The College of William
and Mary. For several years, she served as manager of the Center
for Gifted Education at William and Mary and as a project man-
ager for Project Phoenix. Her interests include program evalua-
tion and curriculum reform. She currently works as a private
consultant and writer.
Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 3