From Quantitative Results to Qualitative Meaning: A Look at Renzulli Learning Through the Eyes of Students,Teachers,and Administrators at Oak Hills Elementary School and Inman Middle School
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2010
From Quantitative Results to Qualitative Meaning: A Look at Renzulli Learning Through the Eyes of Students,Teachers,and Administrators at Oak Hills Elementary School and Inman Middle School
This article summarizes an experimental study that investigated the use of Renzulli Learning on oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, science achievement, and social studies achievement among 383 elementary and middle schools students. The Renzulli Learning System is an online educational learning system and profiler designed to match student interests, learning styles, and expression styles with highly challenging enrichment resources. Students were randomly assigned to use Renzulli Learning for 2–3 hours each week for 16-weeks, and those students who participated demonstrated significantly higher growth in reading comprehension, oral reading fluency, and social studies achievement than control group students who did not participate in Renzulli Learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Azzam A. M..Digital opportunity.Educational Leadership. 2006;63 (4): 89-92
2.
Coiro J..Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies.The Reading Teacher. 2003;56:458-464
3.
Coiro J.,Dobler E..Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet.Reading Research Quarterly. 2007;42:214-257
4.
Handbook of research on new literacies. Coiro J.Knobel M.Lankshear C.Leu D. J., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2008:
5.
Field G. B.The effect of using Renzulli Learning on student achievement: An investigation of Internet technology on reading fluency and comprehension. Storrs: University of Connecticut; 2007:
6.
Garner R.,Gillingham M.Internet connections in six classrooms: Conversations across time, space, and culture. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1996:
7.
Garner R.,Gillingham M.Literacy for the 21st century: Technological transformations in a post-typographic world. Reinking D. R.Labbo L. D.McKenna M.Kieffer R., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1998:221-231.
8.
HasbrouckJ. E.TindalG. A. (2005). Oral Reading Fluency Norms Data. Retrieved February 10, 2009, from http://www.readnaturally.com/pdf/oralreadingfluency.pdf
9.
Hogarty K. Y.,Lang T. R.,Kromrey J. D..Another look at technology in classrooms: The development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers' perceptions.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2003;63:139-162
10.
JenningsH.LuccaL. (2005). Summary of Experimental Study of the Ready to Teach Developmental Electronic Field Trip Reader Project, 1-10. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://orcmacro.com
11.
Kramarski B.,Feldman Y..Internet in the classroom: Effects on reading comprehension, motivation and metacognitive awareness.Educational Media International. 2000;37:149-155
12.
Labbo L. D..A semiotic analysis of young children's symbol-making in a classroom computer center.Reading Research Quarterly. 1996;31:356-385
13.
Leu D. J.,Leu D. D.,Coiro J.Teaching with the Internet: New literacies for new times. 4th ed.Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon; 2004:
14.
MannD.ShaferE. A. (1997, 7). Technology and achievement. American School Board Journal. Retrieved February 21, 2009, from http://www.asbj.com/achievement/ci/ci10.html
15.
Teachers' feelings of preparedness. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement; 1999:
16.
Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools, stats in brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement; 2000:
17.
PearsonR D.FerdigR. E.BlomeyerR. L.MoranJ. (2005). The effects of technology on reading performance in the middle-school grades: A metaanalysis with recommendations for policy. Learning Point Associates/NCEL. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/reading/index.html
18.
PrenskyM. (2001). Digital natives, Digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9.
19.
Reis S. M.,Eckert R. D.,Schreiber F. J.,Jacobs J.,Briggs C.,Gubbins E. J., et alThe Schoolwide Enrichment Model reading study. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented; 2005:
20.
Renzulli J. S.The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press; 1977:
21.
Renzulli J. S.,Reis S. M.The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence. 2nd ed.Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc.; 1997:
22.
Renzulli J. S.,Reis S. M..A technology based program that matches enrichment resources with student strengths.International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. 2007;2 (3):
23.
Seely Brown J.The knowledge advantage: 14 visionaries speak on leveraging knowledge for marketplace success. Ruggles R.Holthouse D., ed. Dover: Capstone; 1999:ix.
24.
Shaunessy E..Attitudes toward information technology of teachers of the gifted: Implications for gifted education.Gifted Child Quarterly. 2007;51:119-135
25.
Siegle D..Music Maestro: Some of the best software begins with a blank screen.Gifted Child Today. 2003;26 (2-3): 35-39
26.
Siegle D..Identifying students with gifts and talents in technology.Gifted Child Today. 2004;27 (4): 30 64-33
27.
Siegle D.,Foster T..Laptop computers and multimedia and presentation Software: Their effects on student achievement in anatomy and physiology.Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2001;34:29-37
28.
Handbook of learning disabilities. Swanson H. L.Harris K. R.Graham S., ed. New York: Guilford; 2003:
