Enrichment clusters offer a way for schools to encourage a high level of learning as students and adults work together to develop a product, service, or performance by applying advanced knowledge and authentic processes to real-world problems. This study utilized a qualitative research design to examine the perceptions and experiences of two enrichment specialists who led the implementation of enrichment clusters in their schools. The perceptions of the participants hold particular value, as the success of clusters depends heavily on the ability of the specialist to effectively plan and organize clusters so that they meet the needs of administrators, teachers, students, and parents. Findings indicated that the participants felt that clusters were worthwhile, despite the time and effort required for implementation. A number of factors were considered critical for the success of clusters, including time and money, teachers as facilitators, focusing on student interests, and planning for rules, routines, and procedures. In addition, the participants identified several ways in which clusters were adapted in order to meet the needs of the school. The study indicates implications, and limitations of these findings are also discussed.
BaumS. M.RenzulliJ. S.HébertT. (1995). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224-235. doi:10.1177/001698629503900406
2.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L.CockingR. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA.DuguidS. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
4.
BrunerJ. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
CreswellJ. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
6.
DeweyJ. (1913). Interest and effort in education. New York, NY: Houghton-Mifflin.
7.
EisenhardtK. M. (2002). Building theories from case study research. In HubermanA. M.MilesM. B. (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
FelderR. M.BrentR. (2004). The intellectual development of science and engineering students: Part 1, models and challenges. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 269-277. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00817.x
9.
HébertT. P. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16, 22-28. doi:10.1080/02783199309553529
10.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
11.
JohnsonD. W.MaruyamaG.JohnsonR. T.NelsonD.SkonL. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.89.1.47
12.
LambertB. L.McCombsN. M. (1998). How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
MayerR. E. (2003). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
MayerR. E. (2004). Should there be a three strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.
17.
MichaelJ. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works?Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159-167. doi:10.1152/advan.00053.2006
18.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
MorganA. (2007). Experiences of a gifted and talented enrichment cluster for pupils aged five to seven. British Journal of Special Education, 34, 144-153. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8578.2007.00470.x
20.
NormanG. R.SchmidtH. G. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-based learning: A review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67, 557-565.
21.
OlenchakF. R. (1990). School change through gifted education: Effects on elementary students’ attitudes toward learning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 66-78. doi:10.1177/016235329001400108
22.
OlenchakF. R.RenzulliJ. S. (1989). The effectiveness of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model on selected aspects of elementary school change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 36-46.
23.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
PayneS. (1999). Interviewing in qualitative research. In MemonA.BullR. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of interviewing (pp. 89-103). New York, NY: Wiley.
25.
PiagetJ. (1975). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York, NY: Viking.
26.
PrinceM. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-231. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
27.
PrinceM. J.FelderR. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 123-138. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x
28.
ReedS. E.WestbergK. L. (2003). Implementing enrichment clusters in a multiage school: Perspectives from a principal and consultant. Gifted Child Today, 26(4), 26-29. doi:10.4219/gct-2003-118
29.
ReisS. M.GentryM.MaxfieldL.R. (1998). The application of enrichment clusters to teachers’ classroom practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 310-334. doi:10.1177/016235329802100304
30.
ReisS. M.GentryM.ParkS. (1995). Extending the pedagogy of gifted education to all students(Research Monograph 95118). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
31.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (1984). Key features of programs for the gifted and talented. Educational Leadership, 41(7), 28-34.
32.
ReisS. M.WestbergK. L.KulikowichJ. M.PurcellJ. H. (1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement test scores: What does the research say?Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 123-129. doi:10.1177/001698629804200206
33.
RenzulliJ. S. (1994). Schools or talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
34.
RenzulliJ. S. (1995). Building a bridge between gifted education and total school improvement (RBDM 9502). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
35.
RenzulliJ. S. (1997). How to develop an authentic enrichment cluster. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
36.
RenzulliJ. S. (1998). A rising tide lifts all ships: Developing the gifts and talents of all students. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 104-111.
37.
RenzulliJ. S.GentryM.ReisS. M. (2004). A time and a place for authentic learning. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 73-77.
38.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1997). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
39.
SeidmanI. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
40.
SlavinR. E. (1989). Research on cooperative learning: An international perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 33, 231-243. doi:10.1080/0031383890330401
41.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
YinR. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
