This article summarizes research on various aspects of the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model and research on eight categorical components of the model carried out over the past 20 years will be presented. These components include: the effectiveness of the model, creative productivity, personal and social development, underserved populations, self-efficacy, SEM as a curricular framework, research relating to learning styles and curriculum compacting, and longitudinal research on the model.
Programs based on enrichment models and enrichment activities are the most commonly used approach in gifted education, however, enrichment approaches are not as well supported by research as are programs based on acceleration. Research on acceleration has provided strong support for the benefits of acceleration in the area of mathematics; and the objectivity of the variables being examined (e.g., math grades and math performance) has enabled researchers to use powerful quantitative research designs. Research on variables associated with enrichment, on the other hand, usually examine more complex student outcomes such as, escalation of the quality of student products, the influence of process-training activities on subsequent applications to real world problems, creativity, independence in work habits, and perhaps most important, love of learning and desire to continue to pursue creative productive work in the future.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanduraA. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–220.
2.
BanduraA. (1977b). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
3.
BaumS. (1985). Learning disabled students with superior cognitive abilities: A validation study of descriptive behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
4.
BaumS. (1988). An enrichment program for the gifted learning disabled students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 226–230.
5.
BaumS.RenzulliJ.HébertT. P.(in preparation). Reversing underachievement through pursuit of student interests.
6.
BurnsD. E. (1987). The effects of group training activities on students' creative productivity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
7.
CooperC. (1983). Administrators' attitudes toward gifted programs based on the enrichment triad/revolving door identification model: Case studies in decision making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
8.
CrandallV. C.KatkovskyW.CrandallV. J. (1965). Children's beliefs in their own control of reinforcement in intellectual-academic situations. Child Development, 36, 91–109.
9.
DelcourtM. A. B. (1993). Creative productivity among secondary school students: Combining energy, interest, and imagination. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 23–31.
10.
DelcourtM. A. B. (1988). Characteristics related to high levels of creative/productive behavior in secondary school students: A multicase study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
11.
DelisleJ. R. (1981). The revolving door identification and programming model: Correlates of creative production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
12.
DelisleJ. R. (1984). Gifted children speak out. New York: Walker & Company.
13.
EbelR. L. (1951). Estimation of the reliability ratings. Psychometrica, 16, 407–424.
14.
EmerickL. (1988). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students' perceptions of factors relating to the reversal of the academic underachievement pattern. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
GubbinsE. J. (1982). Revolving door identification model: Characteristics of talent pool students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
17.
HealM. M. (1989). Student perceptions of labeling the gifted: A comparative case study analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
18.
HébertT. P. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term impact of elementary school experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16, 22–28.
19.
HoustonJ. E.(Ed.). (1990). Thesaurus of ERIC descriptors. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.
20.
ImbeauM. B. (1991). Teachers' attitudes toward curriculum compacting: A comparison of different inservice strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
21.
Instructional Objectives Exchange. (1972). Measures of self-concept K-12 (rev. ed.). Los Angeles: Author.
22.
KarafelisP. (1986). The effects of the tri-art drama curriculum on the reading comprehension of students with varying levels of cognitive ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
23.
NewmanJ. L. (1991). The effects of the talents unlimited model on students' creative productivity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
24.
OlenchakF. R. (1988). The schoolwide enrichment model in the elementary schools: A study of implementation stages and effects on educational excellence. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), Technical report on research studies relating to the revolving door identification model (2nd ed., pp. 201–247). Storrs, CT: Bureau of Educational Research, The University of Connecticut.
25.
OlenchakF. R. (1991). Assessing program effects for gifted/learning disabled students. In SwassingR.RobinsonA. (Eds.). NAGC 1991 Research Briefs. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
26.
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.
27.
ReisS. M. (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, Storrs.
28.
ReisS. M.BurnsD. E.RenzulliJ. S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high-ability students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
29.
ReisS. M.WestbergK. L.KulikovichJ.CaillardF.HébertT. P.PurcellJ. H.RogersJ.SmistJ.PluckerJ. A. (1992). Technical report of the curriculum compacting study. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
30.
ReisS. M.GubbinsE. J.CoyneM.ScheiberR.EckertB.JacobJ.(in press). Technical report of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model-Reading. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
31.
RenzulliJ. S. (1975). A guidebook for evaluating programs for the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: N/S-LTI-G/T.
32.
RenzulliJ. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
33.
RenzulliJ. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
RenzulliJ. S.(Ed.). (1988). Technical report of research studies related to the revolving door identification model. Storrs, CT: Bureau of Educational Research, The University of Connecticut.
35.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
36.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M.SmithL. H. (1981). The revolving door identification model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
37.
RenzulliJ. S.SmithL. H. (1978a). The compactor. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
38.
RenzulliJ. S.SmithL. H. (1978b). The learning styles inventory: A measure of student preference for instructional techniques. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
39.
RenzulliJ. S.SmithL. H.ReisS. M. (1982). Curriculum compacting: An essential strategy for working with gifted students. The Elementary School Journal, 82, 185–194.
40.
SchackG. D. (1986). Creative productivity and self-efficacy in children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
41.
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.
42.
SchlichterC. (1986). Talents unlimited: Applying the multiple talent approach to mainstream and gifted programs. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 352–390). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
43.
SeidelJ. V.KjolsethR.SeymourE. (1988). The ethnograph: A program for the computer-assisted analysis of text-based data (Computer program). Littleton, CO: Qualis Research Associates.
44.
SkaughtB. J. (1987). The social acceptability of talent pool students in an elementary school using the schoolwide enrichment model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
45.
SmithH. W. (1975). Triangulation: The necessity for multimethod approaches. In SmithW. H. (Ed.), Strategies of social research: The methodological imagination (pp. 271–292). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
46.
SmithL. H. (1976). Learning styles: Their measurement and educational significance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
47.
StarkoA. J. (1986). The effects of the revolving door identification model on creative productivity and self-efficacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
48.
StednitzU. (1985). The influence of educational enrichment on the self-efficacy in young children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
49.
StewartE. D. (1979). Learning styles among gifted/talented students: Preferences for instructional techniques. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
50.
TaylorL. A. (1992). The effects of the secondary enrichment triad model arid a career counseling component on the career development of vocationol-technical school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
51.
TorranceE. P. (1965). Education and the creative potential. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press.
52.
WebbJ. T.MeckstrothE. A.TolanS. S. (1982). Guiding the gifted. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology Publishing.
