The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM), a comprehensive system intended to nurture behavioral giftedness without total reliance on a priori gifted program identification procedures, has been proposed as a school change model. This study examined the effectiveness of SEM on student attitudes toward learning among 1,935 elementary school students in 6 middle-class schools. Both quantitative and qualitative data analyses indicated that students' attitudes toward learning were positively influenced by their schools' participation in the SEM treatment. These results provide some rationale for schools to employ SEM, often restricted to gifted programs, as a schoolwide means for improving attitudes toward learning among all students, and at the same time, programming appropriately for the most able students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArlinM. (1976). Manual for Arlin-Hills Attitude Surveys. St. Louis, MO: Psychologists and Educators.
2.
ArlinM.HillsD. (1976). Arlin-Hills Attitude Surveys. St. Louis, MO: Psychologists and Educators.
3.
BarthR. (1986). On sheep and goats and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(12), 293–296.
4.
BaumS. (1984). Meeting the needs of learning disabled gifted students. Roeper Review, 7, 16–19.
5.
BaumS. (1988). An enrichment program for gifted learning disabled students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 226–230.
6.
BurnsD. (1987). The effects of group training activities on students creative productivity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut.
7.
CooperC. (1983). Administrators' attitudes towards gifted programs based on the enrichment triad/revolving door identification model: Case studies in decision-making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut.
8.
DelisleJ.RenzulliJ. (1982) The revolving door identification model: Correlates of creative production. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 89–95.
9.
FullanM. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
GarrettH. (1958). Statistics in psychology and education (5th ed.). New York: Longmans, Green.
11.
GoodladJ. (1983). A study of schooling: Some findings and hypotheses. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(2), 113–118.
12.
GubbinsE. (1982). Revolving door identification model: Characteristics of talent pool students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut.
13.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, D. C.: National Science Foundation.
14.
OlenchakF. (1988). The schoolwide enrichment model in elementary schools: A study of implementation stages and the effects on educational excellence. In RenzulliJ. (Ed.), Technical report on research studies relating to the revolving door identification model (2nd ed.). Storrs, CT: Bureau of Educational Research, The University of Connecticut.
15.
OlenchakF.RenzulliJ. (1989). The effectiveness of the schoolwide enrichment model on selected aspects of elementary school change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 36–46.
16.
PedhazurE. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
17.
ReisS. (1981). An analysis of the productivity of gifted students participating in programs using the revolving door identification model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut.
18.
RenzulliJ. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
19.
RenzulliJ. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261.
20.
RenzulliJ.ReisS. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
21.
RenzulliJ.ReisS.SmithL. (1981). The revolving door identification model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
22.
SchackG. (1986). Creative productivity and self-efficacy in children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut.
23.
SizerT. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
24.
StarkoA. (1986). The effects of creative production on extracurricular creativity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut.
25.
StarkoA. (1988). Effects of the revolving door identification model on creative productivity and self-efficacy. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 291–297.
26.
TabachnickB.FiadellL. (1983). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper and Row.
