Making 20% Matter Most: Meeting the Needs of Gifted and High Ability Students Through Type III 20Time (T4) Projects

Abstract

A 9th grade Honors English class creates and publishes original poems, art, fiction, and nonfiction products through an activity called “Type Three – Twenty Time = T4.” The instructional method merges elements from Renzulli’s Type III process with elements from Brookhouser’s 20Time Project-based learning model. Each student researches an interest passion topic and creates a related original product or service for a real audience. Upon reflection on the experience, the author identifies evidence-based practices including compacting ELA course content to create time for the T4 process; enhanced student engagement; active learning versus passive learning; improved writing skills; quality presentation skills; higher level creative and critical thinking; and upgraded 21st Century skills.

Keywords

gifted creativity type III enrichment 20Time projects project-based learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brookhouser

(2015). The 20Time project: How educators and parents can ignite Google’s formula for supercharged innovation. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Common Core State Standards Initiative . (2019). English language arts standards. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy

Condliffe

Quint

Visher

M. G.

Bangster

M. R.

Drohojowska

Saco

Nelson

(2017). Project-based learning: a literature review. Working Paper.

MDRC

Crevier

(2018). 20% TIME in the CTE classroom. Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers, 93(6), 17–21. http://www.acteonline.org

Davis

N. L.

(2016). Anatomy of a flipped classroom. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 16(3), 228–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2015.1136802

Doss

K. K.

(2018). Providing opportunities for flow experiences and creative problem-solving through inquiry-based instruction. Global Education Review, 5(1), 108–122. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1177629.pdf

Duke

N. K.

(2016). Project-based instruction: A great match for informational texts. American Educator, 40(3), 4–11. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1115458

Duke

N. K.

Strachan

S. L.

Johnson

C. M.

Halvorsen

(2018). Engaging the community with a project-based approach. Social Education, 82(1), 24–29. https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/articles/se_820124.pdf

Ellis

Farmer

Newman

(2005). Big ideas about teaching big ideas. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990503800107

10.

Gough

DeJong

Grundmeyer

Baron

(2017). K-12 teacher perceptions regarding the flipped classroom model for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 45(3), 390–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239516658444

11.

Katrein

(2016). Inquiry, engagement, passion, and grit: Dispositions for genius hour. The Reading Teacher, 70(2), 241. https://doi/org/10.1002/trtr.1496

12.

Matteson

(2016). Its genius: Understanding genius hour and making it rock at your school. School Library Journal. https://www.slj.com/?detailStory=its-genius-hour

13.

McCann

(2017). An approach to letting students drive learning: Schoolwide enrichment model requires educators to relinquish some control. District Administration, Vol. 53. https://districtadministration.com/an-approach-to-letting-students-drive-learning-and-education/?highlight=mccann

14.

McNair

(2017). Genius hour: Passion projects that ignite innovation and student inquiry. Prufrock Press.

15.

Mehta

Fine

(2012). Teaching differently… learning deeply. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209400208

16.

Newman

J. L.

(2005). Talents and type III’s: The effects of the talents unlimited model on creative productivity in gifted youngsters. Roeper Review, 27(2), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554295

17.

Newman

J. L.

(2008). Talents Are unlimited: It’s time to teach thinking skills again! Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.429/gct-2008-789

18.

Newman

J. L.

(2016). Science-research and service-learning: innovative pedagogy for meaningful learning in K-12 science. In Newman

J. L.

Sunal

D.W.

Sunal

C. S.

(Eds.), Science-research and service-learning. Information Age Publishing.

19.

Newman

J. L.

Bailis

(2009). Service-learning as creative productivity. Information For Action: A Journal on Service-Learning Research with Children and Youth, 1(2), 54–63.

20.

Newman

J. L.

Dantzler

Coleman

A. N.

(2015). Science in action: how middle school students are changing their world through STEM service-learning projects. Theory Into Practice, 54(1), 47–54. https://doi.or/10.1080/00405841.2015.977661

21.

Newman

J. L.

Gregg

Dantzler

(2009). Summer Enrichment Workshop (SEW): A quality component of the university of Alabama's gifted education preservice training program. Roeper Review, 31(3), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190902993995

22.

Newman

J. L.

Sunal

D. W.

Sunal

C.S.

(Eds.). (2016). Research-based science and service- learning. Information Age Publishing.

23.

Nouri

(2016). The flipped classroom: For active, effective, and increased learning – especially for low achievers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13, Article 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0032-z

24.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2015). Freedom to teach: Using investigative learning to develop high potentials in young people. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. https://gifted.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/961/2021/05/Freedom_to_Teach.pdf

25.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2016). Involving all students in advanced activities. District Administration, 52, 64. https://districtadministration.com/involving-all-students-in-advanced-activities/?highlight=renzulli

26.

Renzulli

J. S.

Reis

S. M.

(2012). A virtual learning application of the schoolwide enrichment model and high-end learning theory. Gifted Education International, 28(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429411424382

27.

Renzulli

J. S.

Reis

S. M.

(2014). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Creative Learning Press.

28.

Renzulli

J. S.

Reis

S. M.

(2018). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental approach for promoting creative productivity in young people. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

(Ed.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 185–199). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-012

29.

Sasson

Yehuda

Malkinson

(2018). Fostering the skills of critical thinking and question-posing in a project-based learning environment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29, 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.08.001

30.

Spencer

. (2017). The genius of design. Educational Leadership, 74(6), 16–21. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-genius-of-design

31.

Summers

E. J.

Dickinson

(2012). A longitudinal investigation of project-based instruction and student achievement in high school social studies. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(1), 82–103. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1313

32.

Vega

(2015, December 01). Project-based learning research review. https://www.edutopia.org/pbl-research-learning-outcomes

33.

Vigil

V. P.

Mieliwocki

(2015). Genius hour: A learner-centered approach to increasing rigor in the classroom. Instructor, 124(5), 45–47. http://www.scholastic.com/classmags