Grounded in the Enrichment Triad and Achievement Orientation Models, this qualitative case study builds understanding of the relationship between participation in Type III Enrichment and the achievement orientation attitude of goal valuation in 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 indicate a relationship between participation in enrichment and goal valuation. Students engaged in Type III Enrichment perceived their projects as interesting, beneficial, and/or as related to perceptions of identity. In addition, factors of goal valuation were related to students’ continued interest and perceptions of enjoyment after completion of the enrichment projects. These findings have implications for structuring gifted education programs that meet the special needs of gifted secondary school learners.
BoyatzisR. E. (1998). Thematic analysis and code development: Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
BurnsD. E. (1987). The effects of group training activities on students’ creative productivity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
3.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2014). National surveys of gifted programs: Executive summary. Charlottesville: University of Virginia, The National Research Center on Gifted and Talented.
4.
CharmazK. S. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
DavisG. A.RimmS. B.SiegleD. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
6.
DelcourtM. A. B. (1988). Characteristics related to high levels of creative productive behavior in secondary school students: A multi-case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
7.
DelcourtM. A. B. (1994). Characteristics of high-level creative productivity. In SubotnikR.ArnoldK. (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 401–436). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
8.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215–225. doi:10.1177/0146167295213003
9.
FoustR.Hertberg-DavisH.CallahanC. (2009). Students’ perceptions of the non-academic advantages and disadvantages of participation in Advanced Placement courses and International Baccalaureate programs. Adolescence, 44, 289–312. Retrieved from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/foushert.html
10.
GrbichC. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
11.
HébertT. P. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative. Roeper Review, 16, 22–38. doi:10.1080/02783199309553529
12.
HébertT. P.SorensenM. F.RenzulliJ. S. (1997). Secondary Interest-A-Lyzer. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
13.
Hertberg-DavisH.CallahanC. M. (2008). A narrow escape: Gifted students’ perceptions of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 199–216. doi:10.1177/0016986208319705
14.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
MaxwellJ. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
MerriamS. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
MillerW. L.CrabtreeB. F. (1992). Primary care research: A multimethod typology and qualitative road map. In CrabtreeB. J.MillerW. L. (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (Vol. 3, pp. 3–30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19.
NeihartM.ReisS. M.RobinsonN. M.MoonS. M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know?Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
20.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
ReisS. M. (1981). An analysis of the productivity of gifted students participating in programs using the revolving door identification model (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
23.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute one single homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the person over time and experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 233–235. doi:10.1177/0016986209346824
24.
RenzulliJ. S. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsE. J.McMillenK. S.EckertR. D.LittleC. A. (2009). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
27.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
28.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1997). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
29.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (2014). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A how-to guide for talent development (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
30.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M.SmithL. H. (1981). The revolving door identification model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
31.
RitchotteJ. A.MatthewsM. S.FlowersC. 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
32.
RubensteinL. D.SiegleD.ReisS. M.McCoachD. B.BurtonM. 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
33.
SchackG. D. (1986). Creative productivity and self-efficacy in children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
34.
SchackG. D.StarkoA. J.BurnsD. E. (1991). Self-efficacy and creative productivity: Three studies of above average ability children. Journal of Research in Education, 1, 44–52.
35.
SchieverS. W.MakerJ. C. (2003). New directions in enrichment and acceleration. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 165–167). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
36.
SiegleD. (2013). The underachieving gifted child: Recognizing, understanding, and reversing underachievement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
37.
SiegleD.McCoachD. B. (2005). Motivating gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
38.
SiegleD.RubensteinL. D.MitchellM. 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
39.
StarkoA. J. (1986). The effects of the revolving door identification model on creative productivity and self-efficacy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
40.
StarkoA. 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
41.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2014). Program delivery models for the gifted (Digest of Gifted Research). Retrieved from https://tip.duke.edu/node/725
42.
WestbergK. L. (2010). Young creative producers: Twenty-five years later. Gifted Education International, 26, 261–270. doi:10.1177/02614294100260031
