INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. Universi^ M icionlms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8404564 Koonvisal, Dararat SLIPPAGE BETWEEN THE IDEOLOGICAL AND FORMAL DOMAINS: A GIFTED CURRICULUM PROBLEM The University of Oklahoma Ph.D. 1983 University Microfilms I nternstionelSOO N. zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V 1. Glossy photographs or pages. 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print _____ 3. Photographs with dark background _____ 4. Illustrations are poor copy ______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy. 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages ______ 8. Print exceeds margin requirements _____ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine ______ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print ______ 11. Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page{s)_________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered __________ . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages ______ 15. Other Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as raceived, University Microfiims International THE UNIVERSITY 3F OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE SLIPPAGE BETWEEN THE IDEOLOGICAL AND FORMAL DOMAINS; A GIFTED CURRICULUM PROBLEM A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY DARARAT KOONVISAL Norman, Oklahoma 1983 SLIPPAGE BETWEEN THE IDEOLOGICAL AND FORMAL DOMAINS: A GIFTED CURRICULUM PROBLEM APPROVED BY DIS^TATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation for the support and guidance so generously provided ty my chairman, Dr. Michael Langenbach. Not only during the period of working on this dissertation, hut through­ out my graduate studies, he has been an admirable model of what a scholar should be. His incisive critiques of the several drafts of this paper and his unfailing patience enabled me to complete this project. I am indebted to Dr. Thomas Wiggins and Dr. Jay Smith for their inspiration and suggestions regarding the method and report of this study. I am grateful to Dr. Betty Myers for her caring advice and helpful queries ; and I am appreciative of Dr. John Gatlin for his support and assistance during this undertaking. My heartfelt thanks goes to Dr. Pamela M ilchrist, California State at Sacramento, for her friendship and editing; and to Dr. Anthony Stigliano, U.C. Berkeley, for his professional advice on the concept of e q u a lity . Finally, I would like to thank my family and my husband, Chaiyouth Yongpravat, whose support has always been there. i i i SLIPPAGE BETWEEN THE IDEOLOGICAL AND FORMAL DOMAINS; A GIFTED CURRICULUM PROBLEM BY DARARAT KOONVISAL MAJOR PROFESSOR: MICHAEL LANGENBACH, Ph.D. One of the commonly found curriculum prohlems is slippage or in­ consistencies between those ideas of a planning group and the implementa­ tion of such ideas. This study attempted to provide a better perspective for understanding slippage that might occur in selected gifted programs. The study used the Goodlad Conceptual System as a guide to trace slippage between the ideological and formal domains of the sample programs. These domains are among the five domains of a curriculum that are identi­ fied by the Conceptual System. The ideological domain contains the ideas of an educational planning group while the formal domain contains the written curriculum. According to Goodlad, slippage is likely to occur in the transac­ tion of an idea from the ideological domain to the other domains and the only way to trace slippage is by comparing each domain's commonplaces. Commonplaces are substantive elements th a t are common to curriculum de­ velopment. Three of these commonplaces r e la tiv e to a curriculum fo r gifted education are: statements of philosophy, definitions of giftedness, and id e n tific a tio n and sele c tio n methods. The f i r s t commonplace is usually contained in the ideological domain idiile the second and third iv ones are in the formal domain. The major question was: What are the patterns of slippage between the value positions of equality of educational opportunity underlying the two domains of the sample programs? Three minor questions needed to be answered before the study could answer the major question. The first one concerned the development of a framework for analysis. The second and third ones concerned the analysis of the two domains of each sample program. The sample consisted of the eighteen programs from the Educational Research Service,1979. and additional information from their school dis­ t r i c t s and s ta te guidelines. A descriptive procedure was employed in the study. The design permitted the analysis of slippage between egalitarian and elitist posi­ tions embraced in the two domains of each sample program. The inferential value position(s) underlying the ideological do­ main was revealed by an analysis of the statements of philosophy of the program. The inferential value position(s) underlying the formal domain was revealed by an analysis of its definition of giftedness and the iden­ tification and selection methods used. Slippage between the two domains, if any, was revealed by an assessment of the inconsistencies between these inferential value positions. The study provided two main conclusions. F ir s t, the study found a way to analyze slippage between the two domains of a gifted program regarding the concept of equality of educational opportunity. Second, some slippage was found, thus making more credible Goodlad*s conception of curriculum domains. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I . INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1 I I . A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF GIFTED EDUCATION IN THE U.S........................... I 7 The Emergence of the G ifted Child Movement ( I 9IO -I93O) 18 The G ifted Child in Depression and War (1930-1945) 2? The Gifted Child in the Cold War (1945 - 1960) 30 The Gifted Child in the 1960s 38 Conclusion 42 I I I . CONCEPTIONS OF EQUALITY OF EDUCA­ TIONAL OPPORTUNITY............................. 44 A Conceptual Clarification 45 A Classification of Values 74 Philosophical Issues Related to E quality 86 Conclusion 91 IV. A CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM............. 93 Statements of Philosophy 95 D efin itio n s of G iftedness 100 Identification and Selection Methods 110 Conclusion 124 V. THE RESULTS..................................................... 126 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. I 39 v i Chapter P^e Appendix A; The Data fo r A n a ly s is .................. 145 Appendix B: The Classification System and The Analysis of the Sample Programs............................................. 168 Bibliography.......................................................... 188 v i i SLIPPAGE BETWEEN THE IDEOLOGICAL AND FORMAL DOMAINS; A GIFTED CURRICULUM PROBLEM CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Currently, there has iDeen a renewed interest in gifted education. Programs or curricular responses to the needs of this group of children have taken many forms. Inherent in establishing such programs are: statements of philosophy, definitions of giftedness, and the identifica­ tion and selection of students who will benefit from the programs. Deci­ sions made about these programs and their components are value-based. Values are involved in all decision-making in curriculum deve­ lopment. According to the Goodlad Conceptual System, every curriculum consists of five domains of curriculum decision-making.^ These domains are the ideological, formal, perceived, operational, and experiential c u rric u la . The ideological curricula are those that are proposed as desira­ ble by some planning group. Such curricula oftentimes are the preface to the formal curricula as those that are written in the statements of ^Goodlad, J.I. (ed.) Curriculum Inquiry, N.Y., McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979, pp. 58-64 1 philosophy of a program or in other "This we believe" statements.