home

Navik's Top Picks of Useful Websites on Problem Based Learning

General Professional Bookmarks

http://www.ncte.org/inbox/currentissue.html
NCTE Inbox

http://www.nytimes.com/mo/day/yr
The New York Times

 http://www.washingtonpost.com
The Washington Post.

 http://www.middleweb.com/LatestUpdates.html
Middle School News

http://www.faithwriting.homestead.com
Sue Butler includes sample journal writing exercises in the web site for her new Bible-based writing curriculum Icthus Ink.

http://www.capecod.net/schrockguide/
Kathy Schrock’s general guide

http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/bigideas/q4.cfm
DESIGN CURRICULUM & BRAINSTORM IDEAS!  ALPS, Harvard's online Teachers Lab, includes model lesson plans and activities; curriculum design tools; online educational publications; interactive forums, workshops and conferences. At this page, you'll find resources that can help you design curriculum and brainstorm teaching ideas, including "The Collaborative Curriculum Design Tool" to create unit designs by yourself or by using the built-in collaboration features. Requires free registration.

Useful Web Sites on Educational and Gifted Program Evaluation

Listservs for Institutional Materials and Program Evaluation

Other Web-based Resources

On-line Journals, Newsletters, and Reports

Print Materials

Checkley, K. (1997, March). "Magnet schools: Designed to provide equity and choice." ASCD Education Update, 39 (2), 1-9.

Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted, (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. (1984, October). "Synthesis of research on effects of accelerated instruction." Educational Leadership, 84-89.

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1985). The secondary triad model: A practical guide for implementing gifted programs at the Junior and Senior High School Levels. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc.

Renzulli, J. S., ed. (1986). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Rogers, K. B. (1991, October). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Willis, G. B., & Meyer, D. (1989, Winter). "Evaluation of full-time self-contained class for gifted students." Gifted Child Quarterly, 33 (1), 7-10.

Vaughn, V. L., Feldhusen, J. F., & Asher, J. W. (1991, Spring).  "Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education." Gifted Child Quarterly, 35 (2), 92-

Cross-curricular Sites

http://cuip.uchicago.edu/www4teach/98/teams/Harebrains/
Interactive learning site about the Fibonacci Sequence

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/
Index of biographies of historic Americans

http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/confath.html
Biographies of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention

http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/conmain.html
National Archives U.S. Constitution pages

http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/decmain.html
National Archives Declaration of Independence page>

http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/charters.html
National Archives where the Charters of Freedom are kept

http://www.nara.gov/exhall/originals/inaugura.html
George Washington’s first inaugural address

Cumulative Bibliography

Curriculum, Grouping & Program Evaluation:  Gifted

Avery, L. D., Van Tassel-Baska, J, & O’Neill, B.  (1997).  "Making evaluation work:  One school district’s experience." Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(4), 124-132.

Baum, S. M., Olenchak, F. R., Owen, S. V. (1998). "Gifted students with attention deficits: Fact and/or fiction? Or, can we see the forest for the trees?" Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 87.

Selected readings:  Gifted education and middle schools. Council for Exceptional Children Eric Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. [On-line] Retrieved 7/26/01 http://ericec.org/minibibs/eb7.html

Bock, V. (n.d.). "The secret weapon: An IQ-to-grade conversion chart" [On-line]. GT World. Retrieved 7/26/01 from http://www.gtworld.org/iqgrade.html

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G.  (1999).  In search of understanding:  The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA:  ASCD.
Brooks and Brooks explain the rationale behind the constructivist theory of learning, contrasting Franklin Bobbitt’s machine theory to John Dewey’s progressivism.  Traditional classrooms and constructivist classrooms are contrasted.  Five guiding principles of constructivism are discussed:  Posing problems of emerging relevance to students, structuring learning around primary concepts, seeking and valuing students’ points of view, adapting curriculum to address students’ suppositions, and assessing student learning in the context of teaching.

Callahan, C. M., & Caldwell, M. S.  (1997).  A practitioner’s guide to evaluating programs for the gifted.  (A Service Publication of the National Association for Gifted Children).  University of Virginia.
This monograph was designed to explain a strategy for evaluating a gifted program, assist in developing a plan to evaluate by leading the reader through the process, and providing a review of assessment strategies and instruments.

Callahan, C. M., Tomlinson, C. A., Hunsaker, S. L., Bland, L. C., & Moon, T.  (1995, September).  Instruments and evaluation designs used in gifted programs.  (Research Monograph 95132).  Charlottesville, VA:  The University of Virginia.
This research project documents current practices in the evaluation of gifted programs and offers suggestions how to design evaluations to be useful to decision-makers.  Databases on current practices were established during this project.

Campbell, D.  (2001).  The Mozart effect.  New York:  HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Carney, T.  Review of Fourth Generation Evaluation by Egon G. Guba and Yvonna S. Lincoln, Newbury Park, CA:  Sage Publications, 1989.  Retrieved December 3, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.wlu.ca/~wwwpress/jrls/cjc/BackIssues/16.2/carney.html.
Carney, University of Windsor, gives a clear and succinct summary of Guba and Lincoln’s ideas, explaining the paradigm and assumptions inherent in the model.

Chance, P. L.  (1998).  Meeting in the middle:  Gifted education and middle schools working together.  Roeper Review 21(2), 133-138.
This article researches the basic tenants of middle school philosophy and current thinking in gifted education to find areas of compatibility and incompatibility.  The areas of incompatibly have to do with ability grouping and separate classrooms for the gifted.  However, on all other accounts, according to this study, middle school and gifted education can be compatible

Clark, B.  (1997).   Growing up gifted developing the potential of children at home and at school.  Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Prentice-Hall.
Available at the Arlington Heights Memorial Library, Clarks’ handbook is organized into three parts.  The first part, “Understanding Gifted Individual,” has chapters on the issue of excellence and equity, identification, creativity, becoming gifted, and growing up gifted.  Part II is “The school and the Gifted Individual.”  Included are programs for the gifted (evaluation), developing support systems for programs for gifted learners, and finding gifted students in the schools.  Part III is entitled “Optimizing Learning” and includes delivery models, steps to optimize learning, creating the responsive learning environment, integrating intellectual processes, differentiating content and individualizing, issues and concerns and an epilog.

Diaz, E. I. (1998). Perceived factors influencing the academic underachievement of talented students of Puerto Rican descent." Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 105-122.

Eby, J. W., & Smutny, J. F.   (1990).  At thoughtful overview of gifted education.  New York:  Longman.
Available through Arlington Heights Memorial Library, this handbook includes a historical overview of gifted education, chapters on physical and psychosocial aspects of giftedness, the nature of creativity, a review of assessment instruments used in gifted education, identification systems, minority children, girls, primary and preprimary, elementary and secondary, evaluation, and current issues.

Education for the gifted child what constitutes an effective program?  Retrieved November 21, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.baycongroup.com/education/ed_gifted.htm
Parents, teachers, coordinators, administrators, and board members would find the information in this site to be a helpful beginning point for discussing the need for evaluation of a program.   Use this a discussion vehicle for a focus group at the onset of the evaluation or before to establish the need for evaluation.  This site is brief and to the point.

Fiedler, E. (n.d.). Gifted kids in the middle. [On-line]. Retrieved 6/02/2001 from http://www.blackboard.com/courses/Black418A468L/coursedocuments/-82654357/gifted_kids

Fiedler, E., Lange, R. E., & Winebrenner, S. (1993). "In search of reality: Unraveling the myths about ability grouping and the gifted." Roeper Review, 16 (1), 4-7.

Fourth generation evaluation.  Retrieved December 3, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.srds.ndirect.co.uk/4th.htm
This site distills the essence of the four generations of evaluation.  The fourth generation is explained in detail and principles are enumerated.

Gallagher, J. J.  (1998).  "Accountability for gifted students." Phi Delta Kappan 79(10).  749-743.  Retrieved October 28, 2001 from Academic Search Elite online database.
This article discusses evaluation practices for program objectives and includes questions to ask the student and teachers directly.

Gagne, F. (1998). "A proposal for subcategories within gifted or talented populations."  Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 87-95.

Gentry, M. L. (n.d.) Promoting student achievement and exemplary classroom practices through cluster grouping: A research-based alternative to heterogeneous elementary classrooms. (RM99138). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. [On-line]. Retrieved 7/25/01 from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/gentry.html

Gentry, M., & Owen, S. V. (1999). "An investigation of the effects of total school flexible cluster grouping on identification, achievement, and classroom practices." Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 224-243.  Retrieved November 21, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nagc.org/table4.htm  Gifted education programming criterion:  Program evaluation. Gifted coordinators, parents, teachers, and administrators would be interested in this site.  This site offers a rubric of criterion for program evaluation based on guiding principles.  The minimum standards and the exemplary standards are explicated.  This should provide the hallmark for the evaluation of the program.  Four principles guide this evaluation instrument.

Grossen, B., (1996). How should we group to achieve excellence with equity? [On-line].  Retrieved 7/26/01 from http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adiep/grp.htm

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S.  (1989).  Fourth generation evaluation.  New York:  Sage Publications.

Hebert, T. P., & Olenchak, F.R. (2000). "Mentors for gifted underachieving males:  developing potential and realizing promise." Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 196-207.

Heng, M. A. (2000). "Scrutinizing common sense: The role of practical intelligence in intellectual giftedness." Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 171-182.

Hunsaker, S. L.  (2000).  "Documenting gifted program results for key decision-makers."  Roeper Review, 23(2), 80-2.  Retrieved October 28, 2001 from WilsonSelectPlus_FT online database.
This article is discusses how to make evaluations of gifted programs meaningful for those in state legislatures and on boards of education.  Hunsaker draws a distinction between advocacy and evaluation.

Instructor Feedback:  Week 4.  Retrieved December 3, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.uroegon.edu/~ruthie/JrespWk4.html
This appears to be an instructor’s response to her class’s questions about Guba and Lincoln’s Fourth Generation Evaluation.  Jane offers several clear examples of the constructivist nature of Fourth Generation Evaluation.

Kottler, J. A., & Kottler, E.  (2000).  Counseling skills for teachers.  Thousand Oaks, California:  Corwin Press, Inc. a Sage Publications Company.

Kulik, J. A., (n.d.) An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. [On-line]. Retrieved 7/26/2001 from http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~wwwgt/kulik.html

Landrum, M. S.  (2001).  "An evaluation of the catalyst program:  Consultation and collaboration in gifted education."  Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(2), 139-151.

Loveless, T., (n.d.). The tracking and ability grouping debate. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation [On-line]. Retrieved 7/26/2001 from http://www.edexcellence.net/library/track.html

Luke, J.  What is participatory evaluation?  Institute for Learning Innovation.  Retrieved December 3, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.ilinet.org/communicating/aam2000/lukeposter.html
Luke evaluates participatory evaluation in contrast to traditional evaluation and offers a selected bibliography.

MacMillan, D. L., & Hendrick, I. G. "Evolution and legacies." (n.d.). In Goodlad, J. I., & Lovitt, T. C. [Eds.] (1993). Integrating General and Special Education. (pp. 23-48).  New York: Merrill, an imprint of Macmillan Publishing Company.

Miller, K. E., & Niemi, K. A. (1995).  "Gifted and talented:  Fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students’ evaluations of a gifted program." Journal of Genetic Psychology, 156(2), 167.    Retrieved October 28, 2001 from Academic Search Elite database.
In a qualitative evaluation of a pull-out program for gifted students in 4th, 5th, and 6th grades, students identified six areas:  cognitive aspects, program satisfaction, self-expression, self-esteem, boredom, and learning environment.

National Association for Gifted Children.  (1998).  National Association for Gifted Children pre-k-grade 12gifted program standards.  Retrieved October 27, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.nagc.org/webprek12.htm
This site offers a useful set of standards designed particularly for gifted programs to augment the ISBE state standards.  Also included are several organizing principles and definitions.

Newman, D., Scheirer, M. A., Shadish, W., & Wye, C.  (n.d.). Guiding principles for evaluators.  Retrieved October 27, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.eval.org/EvaluationDocuments/aeaprin6.html
In this article, the AEA has presented and explained 5 principles that apply to those conducting evaluations.

Nongraded schooling (n.d.). [On-line]. Retrieved 7/26/01 from http://www.msu.edu/user/robiso12/Nongradedness.htm

NRC/GT’s suggestions:  Evaluating your programs and services.  Retrieved November 21, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~nrcgt/news/spring98/soprng981.html
For teachers, Gubbins has written sample questions which focus on students, curriculum, program implementation, service delivery models, and a frame work to answer the question “What works?”  What needs improvement?”  And “How will possible changes in programs and services improve the educational options for students?  It is elemental and concise for those beginning to consider how to proceed with evaluation.

Oakland, T., Joyce, D., Horton, D., & Glutting J. (2000). "Temperament-based learning styles of identified gifted and nongifted students." Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 183-189.

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P.  (1998).  Curriculum foundations, principles, and issues.  Boston:  Allyn and Bacon.
Foundations, principles, and issues of curriculum are examined in this handbook.  In the chapter on curriculum evaluation, assessment and evaluation are defined.  The nature and purpose of evaluation and approaches to evaluation are examined.  Models are compared based upon their philosophical and theoretical foundations.

Parke, B. N.  (1989).  Gifted students in regular classrooms.  Boston:  Allyn and Bacon.
This handbook has chapters on issues related to the gifted, identification of gifted and talented students, program planning, learning environment, pace, depth, accommodations for individuals, curriculum design (prescribing, models, case studies) and maintaining the programs (troubleshooting and extending the program).  Also included is a section devoted to evaluation.

Planning evaluation service frequently asked questions (part of the U.S. Department of Education website). Retrieved November 21, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/eval_faq.html
This site is for anyone interested in general information about evaluation of educational programs.  Although the FAQ page warns that the content of these pages is not to be used as guidance for conduct of an evaluation, I found the information useful in understanding the structure of evaluation.  The site explains what questions an effective evaluation must answer and what information if must include.  Evaluation methods are compared and discussed.  Advice is given about how to get the greatest number of responses and what the minimum percentage for validity is.  Questionnaire design information  The pages are easy to link to and all links are complete.

Pongracz, M., (n.d.). The latest panacea for gifted students: Cooperative learning. [On-line]. Retrieved 7/26/2001 from http://www.teleprot.com/~rkaltwas/tag/articles/coop.html
Program evaluation.  Retrieved December 3, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http://tc.unl.edu/mbryant/models.html
This site describes the following evaluation models which can be used with fourth generation evaluation:  Connoisseurship model, Goal Free Evaluation, Management Oriented Evaluation, and the Tyler Model.

The program evaluation standards summary of the standards.  Retrieved October 27, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.eval.org/EvaluationDocuments/progeval.html
This summary of standards includes utility standards, feasibility standards, propriety standards, and accuracy standards for evaluations.  It was prepare by Mary E. Ramlow of the Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University.
.
The program manager’s guide to evaluation.  Retrieved October 27, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http://www2acf.dhhs.gov/programs/CORE/dox/prgman.html
The Administration on Children, Youth, and Families developed this guide to explain program evaluation—“what it is, how to understand it, and how to do it.”  In 9 chapters it gives comprehensive answers to questions about evaluation to improve programs and benefit staff and families.

Rief, L., (1992). Seeking diversity language arts with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Reis, S., & McCoach, D.  (2000). "The underachievement of gifted students:  What do we know and where do we go?" Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152-170.

Reis, S., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J. M. & Purcell, J. H. (1998). "Curriculum compacting and achievement test scores:  What does the research say?" Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 123-129.

Renzulli, J. S., (1997). Grouping: A short, data based primary journal research sources bibliography. [On-line]. Retrieved 7/26/01 from http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~nrcgt/sem/semart11.html

Renzulli, J. A. (1998). "The three-ring conception of giftedness." In S. M. Baum, S. M. Reis, & L. R. Maxfield (Eds.). Nurturing the gifts and talents of primary grade students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press [On-line]. Retrieved 7/26/2001 from http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~nrcgt/sem/semart13.html

Renzulli, J. A. (1998) Within-class cluster grouping and related strategies: Brief summaries. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented The University of Connecticut. [On-line]. Retrieved 7/26/2001 from http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~nrcgt/sem/semart12.html

Riordah-Karlsson, M.  (2000).  Constructivism.  U.S.A.:  Teacher Created Materials, Inc.
ISBN 1-57690-467-8, this concise handbook references Constructivist Theory and the work of Dewey, Piaget, Bruner, Vygotsky, and Bakhtin.  It offers references to quotations from each of these authors that illustrate the theory.  Learning is socially constructed, and literacy is a social accomplishment.  These theories of learning are the foundation of grouping practices and classroom experiences.

Robb, L., (2000). Teaching reading in middle school. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.

Robison, M., (1998). One size fits all?  Age based tracking versus ability grouping in elementary school mathematics. Michigan State University. [On-line]. Retrieved 7/26/2001 from http://www.msu.edu/user/robiso12/Grouping.htm

Rogers, K. B., (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. (RBDM 9102). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. [Abstract On-line]. Retrieved 7/26/2001 from http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~wwwgt/rogers.html

Ruff, D. L., (n.d.). Social & emotional needs of the gifted (adults and children). [On-line]. Retrieved 7/26/2001 from http://www.educationaloptions.com/id54_m.htm

Schuler, P. A., (1997). Cluster grouping coast to coast. The National Research Center for the Gifted and Talented. [On-line]. Retrieved 7/25/2001 from http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~nrgt/news/winter97/wintr974.html

Schmidt, P.,(1993, January 13). "Debate over ability grouping gains high profile." Education Week. [On-line]. Retrieved 7/26/2001 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-12/16side.h12

Silky, W., & Readling, J.  (1992).  "REDSIL:  A forth [sic] generation evaluation model for gifted education programs." Roeper Review, 15(2), 67-70.  Retrieved October 28, 2001 from Academic Search Elite database.
The theoretical base for the REDSIL evaluation model comes from Guba and Lincoln’s book entitled Fourth Generation Evaluation.  Descriptions are given of the first three generations; the fourth generation rests on beliefs and assumptions commonly referred to as constructivism.  The most critical of these are listed in the article.

Silverman, L. K., (n.d.). The false accusation of elitism. [On-line]. Retrieved 7/26/2001 from http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/Articles/False%20accusation%20of%20elitist.htm

Starko, A. J. (1990). "Life and death of a gifted program:  Lessons not yet learned."  Roeper Review, 13(1), 33-39.  Retrieved October 28, 2001 from Academic Search Elite database.
This study investigates the factors influencing the establishment, operation and elimination of an elementary enriched/ and accelerated program in existence between 1958 and 1969.

Summerhill, W. R., Cole, M. F., & Taylor, C. L.  (2001). Extension agent perceptions of the role of advisory groups and other lay stakeholders in evaluating cooperative extension programs.  Retrieved November 13, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_PD014

Taking stock:  A practical guide to evaluating your own programs.  Retrieved November 21, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.horizon-research.com/publications/stock.pdf
This site is intended for those considering the merits and procedures of an internal evaluation of any educational organization or program.  I will use this website to better understand the process of evaluation and develop a model suitable for my program.  It contains examples of both formative and summative models, questions, methods of making sense of data, and a glossary of terms.   The site contains 97 pages that may be viewed on Adobe Acrobat.  Paper copy is available for $25.  This is a complete program.  Although it is not possible to print it from the Internet, all the information and pages are available to view.  It is probably worth the $25.

Tomlinson, C. A., (1995). Gifted learners and the middle school: Problem or promise? ERIC EC Digest E535. Eric Clearinghouse on Disabilities and gifted education. [On-line]. Retrieved 7/26/2001 from http://ericec.org/digests/e535.html

Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M.  (1994).  "Planning effective evaluations for programs for the gifted."  Roeper Review, 17(1), 46-52.  Retrieved October 28, 2001 from Academic Search Elite database.
This publication provides a comprehensive planning guide for evaluating programs for gifted learners.  While no model is suggested, the questions that would allow another generic model to be useful are included in the background information.  A checklist for planning for evaluation of programs for the gifted is included.

Tyler, R. W.  (1949).  Basic principles of curriculum and instruction.  The University of Chicago Press.
Originally published as a syllabus for an education class at the University of Chicago, Tyler’s book addresses the purposes of education, the selection of learning experiences useful in attaining objective, organization of experiences for effective instruction, and evaluation of effectiveness of learning experiences.  Answers are not given to the questions raised by these issues, but rather an explanation of procedures by which these questions can be answered.  It is a rationale for examining curriculum and instruction.  Tyler’s objectives-oriented approach may prove useful in designing the evaluation of the gifted program.

VanTassel-Basla, J.  (2001, November 9).  Evaluating programs for the gifted:  Critical Issues.  PowerPoint presentation at the meeting of the National Association for gifted Children, Cincinnati, Ohio.
VanTassel-Baska presented evaluation questions, sample objectives of the gifted program evaluation, focus group interview questions, and an example of curriculum policies for gifted and talented education.

VanTassel-Baska, J., (n.d.). Basic educational options for gifted students in schools. [On-line]. Retrieved 7/26/2001 from http://cfge.wm.edu/Articles/Basic_Educational_Options.htm

Walley, C.W., & Gerrick, W.  (1999).  Affirming middle grades education.  Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Wells, G. Dialogic inquiry in education:  Building on the legacy of Vygotsky.  Retrieved November 17, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http//www.oise.utoronto.ca/~gwells/NCTE.html

What educators of gifted learners need to know about…myths of giftedness [12 paragraphs].  [On-line]. Retrieved 7/25/2001 from http://www.bctf.bc.ca/PSAs/AEGTCCBC/publications/broch/Myths.html

Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (2001).  The new American middle school.  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Winebrenner, S., & Devlin, B. (1996-08-00).  Cluster grouping of gifted students: How to provide full-time services on a part-time budget.  ERIC Digest E538.   Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. [On-line]. Retrieved 7/25/2001 from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed397618.html

Winebrenner, S., & Devlin, B. (n.d.). Cluster grouping. [On-line]. Retrieved 7/25/2001 from http://www.uwgb.edu/lorenzd/cluster.htm

Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. L.  (1997). Program evaluation alternative approaches and practical guidelines.  New York:  Longman.
Available from Northern Illinois University Library, the first part of this book is an introduction to evaluation, the purpose, uses and conceptual distinctions as well as origins of modern program evaluation and recent developments and trends in evaluation.  Part two includes alternative approaches to program evaluation – view and seven approaches.  Part Three has practical guidelines for planning evaluations.  Part four offers practical guidelines for conducting and using evaluations, and part five is emerging and future setting for program evaluation.  Also included is information about how to evaluate evaluations.

Wright, R. A., & Krebs, D.  (2001, February).  Qualitative evaluations of gifted programs.  Paper presented at the meeting of the Illinois Association for Gifted Children Conference, Chicago, IL.
The materials in this packet include a formal definition of evaluation, reasons to evaluate a program, an outline of the process involved in evaluation, a student opinionnaire, cluster teacher survey, teacher opinionnaire, parent opinionnaire, forms for recording information from conversations with principals, teachers, and a copy of the Project Arrow Program Evaluation K-8 Action Plan, 1996-98.

Zadek, S.  Beyond fourth generation evaluation.  Retrieved December 3, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/top.asp
Zadek further elucidates the theory of fourth generation evaluation, its foundations, and charts its constructs.  His criticism of their model is its “strict preconditions and polarization of conventional approaches endangers the practical application of their proposed method, and its internal consistency.”