Search

A major controversy facing the field of gifted education is the underrepresentation of low income, minority, and dual language students. Strategies for addressing this challenge have been to use universal screening and local norms; however, these useful recommendations continue to focus on traditional testing procedures that measure what students already know and overlook other important traits that contribute to high levels of creative productivity. Assessment for learning examines traits such as interests, instructional preference styles, preferred modes of expression, and executive function skills. Although sometimes referred as the “soft skills,” they have gained much more attention on the parts of college admission officers and employers, especially for higher level leadership positions. Instruments that assess these traits are often completed by the students themselves; and technology and artificial intelligence now allow us to administer and analyze them with the same ease used for traditional standardized tests.

Parents of academically talented students with various types of learning differences, often called 2E, need to understand how support their children’s unique needs. In this article, we discuss current research about 2E students and focus on how parents can both nurture and find educational opportunities that encourage their children’s strengths and simultaneously address their deficits. Talent development strategies are discussed for parenting for strengths with this population. Too often, 2E students, have conflicting needs that can complicate the identification and development of their talents and so this article concludes with specific recommendations for parents of these students.

This article includes an introduction to the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM), with its three components: a total talent portfolio for each child, curriculum differentiation and modification, and enrichment opportunities from the Enrichment Triad Model. Also included is a brief history of the SEM and a summary of 30 years of research underlying this programming model in gifted education and talent development. Exciting new directions in SEM are introduced, including Renzulli Learning, an internet-based tool that identifies students' interests, learning styles, and expression styles that subsequently matches students with thousands of differentiated resources.

Remarkable advances in instructional communication technology (ICT) have now made it possible to provide high levels of enrichment services to students online. This paper describes an Internet-based enrichment program based on a high-end learning theory that focuses on the development of creative productivity through the application of knowledge rather than the mere acquisition and storage of knowledge. The program, called Renzulli Learning System (RLS), extends the pedagogy of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) to various forms of enrichment as well as first-hand investigative and creative endeavors. In this paper, a brief overview is provided about the SEM, the organizational framework upon which the RLS is based. This section will be followed by summaries of the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness and the Enrichment Triad Model, the two theories underlying SEM, and the final section presents a detailed description of the RLS.

We are pleased to have this opportunity to share with the international community of gifted educators the theoretical, research, and practical aspects of our work. Since the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) has been described in great detail in various books and other publications, this introductory article will present an overview of the major theoretical and organizational issues underlying the model Other articles in this special issue will deal with a summary of research and examples of how the model is used at various school levels and in different countries. Interested readers are also invited to visit the SEM folder at our web site [ www.gifted.uconn.edu ] for additional resources that can be used to aid in the implementation of the model I have also listed at the conclusion of this article a number of key resources for interested readers. There are two main considerations that educators should think about when exploring the use of this or any other model for use in their schools: the underlying theoretical (or pedagogical) models and organizational (or administrative) models around which service delivery is arranged. When most people are asked what “model” is being used to guide their special program, they almost always answer in terms of organizational models. Although we believe that both types of models play important roles in guiding program quality and effectiveness, theoretical models should be the first and most essential consideration in program planning. Theoretical or pedagogical models consist of the principles and derivative experiences and activities that are designed to accomplish particular kinds of learning. Theoretical models usually draw upon the work of leading philosophers, researchers, and learning theorists, and they are located somewhere on a continuum of learning theories ranging from highly didactic or prescriptive learning on one end to highly inductive or investigative learning on the other. The work of Pavlov, Thorndike, and Skinner are examples of didactic theories, whereas inductive or constructivist theories are represented by writers such as Dewey, Pestalozzi, Piaget, and Montessori Theoretical models should be the first and most important consideration when examining the quality of services for gifted students. Organizational models are concerned with how we group students, move them around between and among various service delivery options, plan schedules and events, allocate time blocks, assign teachers, and do other things that contribute to the efficient and effective use of student time and human and material resources. Examples in this category are pullout programs, full-time special classes, cluster grouping, after school programs, Saturday programs, grade skipping, advanced classes, college courses, special schools, and differentiation in the regular classroom. Organizational models are obviously important, but they do not tell us why, what, and how we present learning experiences within any of the organizational models mentioned above that are qualitatively different from the learning experiences that take place in regular education 2 2 Covering more material faster is a quantitative rather than qualitative difference in learning. Rapid coverage of large amounts of material certainly has value and should be an option in special programs, but the pedagogy and the role of the learner generally are the same as in regular education. . A special class for gifted students could, for example, be very didactic or prescriptive in its approach to learning, or it could be an environment in which students engage in self-selected investigative activities using the authentic methods of practicing professionals, even if their methodology is at a more junior level than adult scientists, writers, or other professionals. The most important consideration is that students in the special class are thinking, feeling, and doing what real world investigators and problem solvers do, as opposed to being consumers of knowledge who are mainly involved in accumulating information and practicing thinking skills, albeit at a faster level. The same theoretical distinctions can be made for all of the types of organizational models listed above. It's not when or where we do it, or even with whom we do it. The key issue is how we do it!

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.

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, unhabits, and perhaps most important, love of learning and desire to continue to pursue creative productive work in the future.

One of the continuing problems facing programs and services for the gifted and talented is how to identify at risk students and students who ordinarily do not show up well on test scores and other traditional identification procedures. Although ‘performance based identification’ is frequently discussed in the literature, there is limited use of this practice, and very few systematic vehicles have been created to screen general populations for unidentified or under identified students who may benefit from the types of services ordinarily provided by special programs. The enrichment cluster approach described below was designed to create highly challenging learning opportunities that, in a certain sense, allow high potential students to identify themselves! This approach works well with traditionally identified students as well as those who may be overlooked through test oriented identification procedures. The key to successful use of this approach is that whenever a student shows remarkably high interest, expertise, and creative productivity in an enrichment cluster, resource specialists, mentors, or other teachers with advanced level expertise should be available to provide the kinds of follow-up experiences that will sup-port the student's advance work.

This article explores the multi-faceted nature of giftedness. The writer draws together a number of diverse definitions and developments of researchers in the field. He suggests a way forward in understanding the concept of giftedness in the light of recent research.

This article not only proposes new directions for the Schoolwide Enrichment model, it also analyses the processes of real and effective curriculum change. The very act of learning is perceived to be at the centre of the change process. Developing modifications of existing curricula should also provide appropriate content and skills development which allows all students to develop their full potential. The article is based on Dr Renzulli's recent book, Schools for Talent Development: a Practical Plan for Total School Improvement, published in 1994 by Creative Learning Press.

This article consists of a step by step refutation of criticisms made by Dr. Hans Jellen in a presentation entitled “Renzulli-it-is: a national disease in gifted education” delivered at the Illinois State Conference on the Gifted, on 14th November 1983. The three-ring conception of giftedness (abilities, creativity and task orientation) is justified and supporting research is quoted. The Student Product Assessment Form (SPAF) is defended and compared to Jellen's unadopted S1U 0–100 Approach, and the widely adopted Enrichment Triad Model for developing programmes for the gifted is compared to Jellen's entirely untried “more-of-the-same” approach.

This paper discusses four major issues concerning the evaluation of programmes for the gifted. 1 The need to evaluate gifted programmes so that planning, development and accountability form a natural sequence of educational objectives. 2 Decisions for change and improvement can only be made in the light of sound evaluation and this evaluation must consider the practical as well as the educational issues. 3 Evaluation should be diagnostic and specific to a particular programme. 4 It must be recognised that the evaluation of gifted programmes requires awareness of the problems associated with assessing ‘higher level’ objectives; the unsuitability of conventionally standardized tests and the practical demand on time, money and trained personnel.

Most exceptionally able children spend far too much time practising skills already mastered and repeating tasks or doing assignments which they have already covered. Joseph Renzulli proposes that, to avoid this reputation, teachers should initially ascertain, by pre-testing, what skills exceptional children already have and in what curriculum areas they are already knowledgeable and experienced. This means that teachers have to know what their aims and objectives are in, for example, mathematics, reading, science, etc. Then a pupil's learning programme can be developed from his/her level of competence and knowledge. He calls this process of assessment prior to planning ‘Compacting’. The time thus ‘saved’ by omitting unnecessary practice or repetition can then be spent on extension activities.