Environmental Perceptions of Gifted Secondary School Students Engaged in an Evidence-Based Enrichment Practice

Abstract

Grounded in the Achievement Orientation Model, this qualitative case study examines participation in enrichment and environmental perceptions of gifted secondary school students. Participants included 10 gifted secondary school students, their parents, and their classroom teacher. Data included student, parent, and teacher responses in semistructured interviews, short answer surveys, and student work. Findings indicated a relationship between participation in enrichment and environmental perceptions. Student participants benefited from a teacher trained in gifted education who nurtured both affective and cognitive development, homogeneous grouping with like-minded peers, involved parents, and relationships with project mentors. These findings have implications for designing learning environments that effectively support the special needs of gifted secondary school learners.

Keywords

gifted secondary school students environmental perceptions enrichment Type III enrichment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baum

S. M.

Schader

R. M.

Hébert

T. P.

(2014). Through a different lens: Reflecting on a strengths-based, talent-focused approach for twice-exceptional learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 311-327. doi:10.1177/0016986214547632

Borland

J. H.

(2012). Problematizing gifted education, part III: Gifted education without gifted programs. The Creativity Post. Retrieved from http://www.creativitypost.com/education/problematizing_gifted_education_part_iii_gifted_education_without_gift3

Boyatzis

R. E.

(1998). Thematic analysis and code development: Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brigandi

C. B.

Siegle

Weiner

J. M.

Gubbins

E. J.

Little

C. A.

(2016). Gifted secondary school students: The perceived relationship between enrichment and goal valuation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted (JEG), 39, 263-287. doi:10.1177/0162353216671837

Brinkman

Kvale

(2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burns

D. E.

(1994). Taxonomy of Type II process skills. Storrs, CT: Renzulli Center for Creativity, Gifted Education, and Talent Development. Retrieved from http://gifted.uconn.edu/schoolwide-enrichment-model/typeiips/

Callahan

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

(2014). National surveys of gifted programs executive summary. Charlottesville: University of Virginia, The National Research Center on Gifted and Talented.

Campbell

J. L.

Quincy

Osserman

Pedersen

O. K.

(2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42, 294-320. doi:10.1177/0049124113500475

10.

Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

11.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Chase-Lansdale

P. L.

Pittman

L. D.

(2002). Welfare reform and parenting: Reasonable expectations. Future of Children, 12, 167-185.

13.

Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

Gross

M. U. M.

(2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. I). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

14.

Coleman

L. J.

Cross

T. L.

(2005). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance, and teaching (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock.

15.

Cross

T. L.

Swiatek

M. A.

(2009). Social coping among academically gifted adolescents in a residential setting: A longitudinal study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 25-33. doi:10.1177/0016986208326554

16.

Csikszentmihalyi

Rathunde

Whalen

(1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Delcourt

M. A. B.

(1994). Characteristics of high-level creative productivity. In Subotnik

Arnold

(Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 401-436). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

18.

Dimitriadis

(2011). Provision for mathematically gifted children in primary schools: An investigation of four different methods of organizational provision. Educational Review, 64, 241-260. doi:10.1080/00131911.2011.598920

19.

Foust

Hertberg-Davis

Callahan

(2009). Students’ perceptions of the non-academic advantages and disadvantages of participation in advanced placement courses and international baccalaureate programs. Adolescence, 44, 289-312.

20.

Gallagher

J. J.

Harradine

C. C.

Coleman

M. R.

(1997). Challenge or boredom? Gifted students’ views on their schooling. Roeper Review, 19, 132-136. doi:10.1080/02783199709553808

21.

Grbich

(2013). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22.

Gross

M. U. M.

(2006). Exceptionally gifted children: Long-term outcomes of academic acceleration and nonacceleration. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 404-429. doi:10.4219/jeg-2006-247

23.

Gubbins

E. J.

Housand

Oliver

Schader

de Wet

Sternberg

R. J.

. . . Brighton

C. M.

(2007). Unclogging the mathematics pipeline through access to algebraic understanding. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Retrieved from https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/research-based_resources/gubbhous/

24.

Harry

Sturges

K. M.

Klingner

J. K.

(2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher, 34, 3-13.

25.

Hébert

T. P.

(1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative. Roeper Review, 16, 22-38. doi:10.1080/02783199309553529

26.

Hertberg-Davis

Callahan

C. M.

(2008a). Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs. In Pucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 31-44). Waco, TX: Prufrock.

27.

Hertberg-Davis

Callahan

C. M.

(2008b). A narrow escape: Gifted students’ perceptions of advanced placement and international baccalaureate programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 199-216. doi:10.1177/0016986208319705

28.

Kanevsky

Keighley

(2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26, 20-28. doi:10.1080/02783190309554235

29.

Kulik

J. A.

(1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives (RBDM 9204). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

30.

Lee

S. Y.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Makel

M. C.

Putallaz

(2015). Gifted students’ perceptions of an accelerated summer program and social support. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 265-282. doi:10.1177/0016986215599205

31.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

32.

Maccoby

E. E.

(2000). Parenting and its effects on children: On reading and misreading behavior genetics. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 1-27. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.1

33.

McCoach

D. B.

Siegle

(2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 144-154. doi:10.1177/001698620304700205

34.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

35.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

36.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Miller

W. L.

Crabtree

B. F.

(1992). Primary care research: A multimethod typology and qualitative road map. In Crabtree

B. J.

Miller

W. L.

(Eds.), Doing qualitative research (Vol. 3, pp. 3-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

38.

QSR International. (2014). NVivo qualitative data analysis software (Version 10). Melbourne, Australia: Author.

39.

Olszewski-Kubilius

(2002). A summary of research regarding early entrance to college. Roeper Review, 24, 152-157. doi:10.1080/02783190209554166

40.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

41.

Pimparyon

Caleer

S. M.

Pemba

Roff

(2000) Educational environment, student approaches to learning and academic achievement in a Thai nursing school. Medical Teacher, 22, 359-364. doi:10.1080/014215900409456

42.

Reis

S. M.

McCoach

D. B.

Coyne

Schreiber

F. J.

Eckert

R. D.

Gubbins

E. J.

(2007). Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading fluency, comprehension, and attitude toward reading: An evidence-based study. Elementary School Journal, 108, 3-24. doi:10.1086/522383

43.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1997). The Enrichment Triad Model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted. In George

W. C.

Cohn

S. J.

Stanley

J. C.

(Eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment (pp. 85-88). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

44.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

45.

Renzulli

J. S.

Gubbins

E. J.

McMillen

K. S.

Eckert

R. D.

Little

C. A.

(2009). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock.

46.

Renzulli

J. S.

Reis

S. M.

(2014). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for talent development (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock.

47.

Renzulli

J. S.

Smith

(1977). The management plan for individual and small group investigations. In Renzulli

J. S.

Reis

S. M.

Smith

L. H.

(Eds.), Revolving door identification model (p. 165). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

48.

Rimm

S. B.

Siegle

Davis

G. A.

(2018). Education of the gifted and talented (7th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

49.

Ritchotte

J. A.

Matthews

M. S.

Flowers

C. P.

(2014). The validity of the achievement-orientation model for gifted middle school students: An exploratory study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 183-198. doi:10.1177/0016986214534890

50.

Robinson

N. M.

Reis

S. M.

Neihart

Moon

S. M.

(2002). Social and emotional issues facing gifted and talented students: What have we learned and what should we do now? In Neihart

Reis

S. M.

Robinson

N. M.

Moon

S. M.

(Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 267-289). Waco, TX: Prufrock.

51.

Rogers

K. B.

(2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382-396. doi:10.1177/0016986207306324

52.

Rubenstein

L. D.

Siegle

Reis

S. M.

McCoach

D. B.

Burton

M. G.

(2012). A complex quest: The development and research of underachievement interventions for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 678-694. doi:10.1002/pits.21620

53.

Sandelowski

Barroso

(2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York, NY: Springer.

54.

Schack

G. D.

Starko

A. J.

Burns

D. E.

(1991). Self-efficacy and creative productivity: Three studies of above average ability children. Journal of Research in Education, 1, 44-52.

55.

Schuler

P. A.

(2002). Perfectionism in gifted children and adolescents. In Neihart

Reis

S. M.

Robinson

N. M.

Moon

S. M.

(Eds.), Social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 71-79). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

56.

Schiever

S. W.

Maker

J. C.

(2003). New directions in enrichment and acceleration. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 165-167). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

57.

Siegle

(2013). The underachieving gifted child: Recognizing, understanding, & reversing underachievement. Waco, TX: Prufrock.

58.

Siegle

McCoach

D. B.

(2005). Motivating gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock.

59.

Siegle

McCoach

D. B.

Roberts

(2017). Why I achieve determines whether I achieve. High Ability Studies, 28, 59-72. doi:10.1080/13598139.2017.1302873

60.

Siegle

Rubenstein

L. D.

Mitchell

M. S.

(2014). Honors students’ perceptions of their high school experience: The influence of teachers on student motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 35-50. doi:10.1177/0016986213513496

61.

Silverman

L. K.

(1999). Perfectionism: The crucible of giftedness. Advanced Development, 8, 47-61. doi:10.1177/026142940702300304

62.

Sisk

(1997). Accelerated verses enrichment: A position paper. In George

W. C.

Cohn

S. J.

Stanley

J. C.

(Eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment (pp. 236-238). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

63.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

(2004). Factors influencing the development of perfectionism in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 259-274. doi:10.1177/001698620404800402

64.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

Williams

K. K.

Cross

T. L.

(2009). Gifted high-school students’ perspectives on the development of perfectionism. Roeper Review, 31, 198-206. doi:10.1080/02783190903177564

65.

Starko

A. J.

(1988). The effects of the revolving door identification model on creative productivity and self-efficacy. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 291-297. doi:10.1177/001698628803200301

66.

Steele

C. M.

(2000, September). Promoting educational success: Social and cultural considerations. Paper presented at the U.S. Department of Education and The National Academies’ Millennium Conference, Washington, DC.

67.

Swiatek

M. A.

(2001). Social coping among gifted high school students and its relationship to self-concept. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 19-39. doi:10.1023/A:1005268704144

68.

Swiatek

M. A.

(2002). Social coping among gifted elementary students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 65-86. doi:10.1177/016235320202600104

69.

VanTassel-Baska

(2014, March). Program delivery models for the gifted. Digest of Gifted Research. Retrieved from https://blogs.tip.duke.edu/giftedtoday/2006/08/27/program-delivery-models-for-the-gifted/

70.

Vaughn

V. L.

Feldhusen

J. F.

Asher

J. W.

(1991). Meta-analysis and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 92-98. doi:10.1177/001698629103500208

71.

Vygotsky

(1962). Thinking and speaking. Cambridge: MIT Press.

72.

Westberg

K. L.

(2010). Young creative producers: Twenty-five years later. Gifted Education International, 26, 261-270. doi:10.1177/02614294100260031

73.

Willis

(2007). Brain friendly strategies for the inclusion classroom: Insights from a neurologist and classroom teacher. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

74.

Wilson

H. E.

Siegle

McCoach

D. B.

Little

C. A.

Reis

S. M.

(2014). A model of academic self-concept: Perceived difficulty and social comparison among academically accelerated secondary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 111-126. doi:10.1177/0016986214522858

75.

Winton

B. J.

(2013). Reversing underachievement among gifted secondary students (Doctoral dissertation). Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Retrieved from https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/37824/research.pdf?sequence=2

76.

Yang

Gentry

Choi

Y. O.

(2012). Gifted students’ perceptions of the regular classes and pull-out programs in South Korea. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 270-287. doi:10.1177/1932202X12451021

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB