This study used sequential mixed-methods analyses to investigate the effectiveness of a research-based language arts curriculum for gifted third graders. Using analytic induction, researchers found that teachers’ beliefs and expectations (time, sense of autonomy, expectations for students, professional expertise) influenced the degree to which they implemented the research intervention with fidelity to its design. Next, maximum variation sampling and quantitative analysis of student outcomes determined that postassessment achievement test scores are higher for students in classrooms with teachers who show high fidelity or adherence to the intervention.
BlakelyC.MayerJ. P.GottschalkR. G.SchmittN.DavidsonW. S. (1987). The fidelity—Adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public sector social programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 253-269.
2.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City: University of Iowa.
3.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
4.
DaneA. V.SchneiderB. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control?Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 23-45.
5.
DumasJ.LynchA.LaughlinJ.SmithE.PrinzR. (2001). Promoting intervention fidelity: Conceptual issues, methods and preliminary results from the EARLY ALLIANCE prevention trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20, 38-47.
6.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York, NY: Macmillan.
7.
GoodT. L.NicholsS. L. (2001). Expectancy effects in the classroom: A special focus on improving the reading performance of minority students in first-grade classrooms. Educational Psychologist, 36, 113-126.
8.
HarnqvistK.GustafssonJ. E.MuthénB.NelsonG. (1994). Hierarchical models of ability at class and individual levels. Intelligence, 18, 165-187.
9.
HooverH. D.DunbarsS. B.FrisbieD. A.OberleyK. R.OrdmanV. L.NaylorR. J.. . . ShannonG. P. (2003). The Iowa tests: Guide to research and development. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
10.
KaplanS. (2005). Layering differential curricula for gifted and talented. In KarnesF.BeanS. (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching gifted students (2nd ed., pp. 107-132). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
KuklinskiM. R.WeinsteinR. S. (2000). Classroom and grade level differences in the stability of teacher expectations and perceived differential teacher treatment. Learning Environments Research, 3, 1-34.
14.
LillehojC. J.GriffinK. W.SpothR. (2004). Program provider and observer ratings of school-based preventive intervention implementation: Agreement and relation to youth outcomes. Health Education & Behavior, 31, 242-257.
15.
LynchS.O’DonnellC. (2005, April). “Fidelity of implementation” in implementation and scale-up research designs: Applications from four studies of innovative science curriculum materials and diverse populations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
16.
MaxwellJ. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
MilesM.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
18.
MoonT. R.BrightonC. M. (2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 447-480.
19.
MowbrayC. T.HolterM. C.TeagueG. B.BybeeD. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 315-340.
O’DonnellC. L. (2004). Fidelity of implementation: Background, definitions, and components for measuring (Internal document). Washington, DC: The George Washington University.
23.
O’DonnellC. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33-84.
24.
PluckerJ.CallahanC. (Eds.). (2007). Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
25.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). London, England: SAGE.
26.
ReisS. M. (2003). Reconsidering regular curriculum for high-achieving students, gifted underachievers, and the relationship between gifted and regular education. In BorlandJ. A. (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 186-200). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
27.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2003). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model. Gifted Education International, 18, 15-39.
28.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. R. (2010). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A focus on student strengths and interests. Gifted Education International, 26, 140-157.
29.
Ruiz-PrimoM. A. (2005, April). A multi-method and multi-source approach for studying fidelity of implementation. In LynchS.O’DonnellC. L. (Chairs), “Fidelity of implementation” in implementation and scale-up research designs: Applications from four studies of innovative science curriculum materials and diverse populations. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
30.
SlavinR. (2003). A reader’s guide to scientifically based research: Learning how to assess the validity of education research is vital for creating effective, sustained reform. Educational Researcher, 60(5), 12-16.
31.
TomlinsonC. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
32.
TomlinsonC. A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory Into Practice, 44, 160-166.
33.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.LittleC. A. (2011). Content based curriculum for high ability learners (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
