Abstract
Enrichment clusters offer a way for schools to encourage a high level of learning as students and adults work together to develop a product, service, or performance by applying advanced knowledge and authentic processes to real-world problems. This study utilized a qualitative research design to examine the perceptions and experiences of two enrichment specialists who led the implementation of enrichment clusters in their schools. The perceptions of the participants hold particular value, as the success of clusters depends heavily on the ability of the specialist to effectively plan and organize clusters so that they meet the needs of administrators, teachers, students, and parents. Findings indicated that the participants felt that clusters were worthwhile, despite the time and effort required for implementation. A number of factors were considered critical for the success of clusters, including time and money, teachers as facilitators, focusing on student interests, and planning for rules, routines, and procedures. In addition, the participants identified several ways in which clusters were adapted in order to meet the needs of the school. The study indicates implications, and limitations of these findings are also discussed.
Say Cheese! Mission Invention. Bake My Day. Drama Queens and Kings. Leapin’ Lizards. Shake It, Don’t Break It! Mission Medieval. What child wouldn’t love the chance to participate in such classes? Since 2011, students in two elementary schools have spent an hour a week participating in these classes, known as enrichment clusters. This study examined the perceptions of two enrichment specialists who led their schools’ implementation of these enrichment experiences: how they felt about clusters, what factors were necessary for success, and how the schools adapted enrichment clusters to fit their particular needs. Implications for future practice and research are also discussed.
Enrichment Clusters
Enrichment clusters provide an opportunity for students from different grades and classes to come together to share a common passion, not only with other students, but also with interested adults, as they work together to produce an authentic product, service, or performance for a real-world audience (Renzulli, 1994, 1995). A focus on the development of higher order thinking skills encourages students to learn advanced content and use authentic processes as they investigate real-world problems (Renzulli & Reis, 1997).
Enrichment clusters are similar to extra-curricular activities such as clubs and sports as they meet at designated times, there are no predetermined lesson plans, and membership is based on interest. However, extracurricular activities exclude some students because of the additional time and, in some cases, cost. Clusters provide these experiences to all children within the school.
Enrichment clusters include Type I and Type II enrichment activities, those provided to all students. Type I enrichment includes exploratory activities designed to expose students to a variety of disciplines, topics, ideas, and fields they would not normally encounter in the regular curriculum (Renzulli, 1995). Field trips, guest speakers, demonstrations, videos, and print media are commonly used in Type I activities to spark student interest in a topic.
Type II enrichment consists of methods and materials designed to develop higher level thinking processes and skills and to encourage students to further explore particular topics (Renzulli, 1995). Such processes and skills include critical thinking, creativity, problem solving, and inquiry, as well as methods and advanced content specific to the field of interest.
Type I and Type II activities are the components of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) that are offered to all children to broaden their experiences and sharpen their skills. Through these activities, many students find a passion, which they are encouraged to pursue in Type III enrichment—independent projects self-selected by highly motivated students. Each school’s model of the SEM is different, based on local resources, faculty strengths and interests, student populations, and school leadership (Renzulli, 1995, 1998).
Although the SEM is based on practices that originated in gifted and talented programs, it is intended to provide challenging, high level learning experiences to all students in a school. In “a rising tide lifts all ships” approach, specific strategies for improving student effort and performance are infused into content areas. Access to the rich experiences, opportunities, and resources normally reserved for those identified as gifted encourages all students to develop their gifts and talents as fully as possible (Renzulli, 1998).
Enrichment Teaching and Learning
The SEM is built on a theoretical basis of enrichment teaching and learning, which includes four guiding principles:
Each learner is unique and, therefore, all learning experiences must be examined for ways that take into account the abilities, interests, and learning styles of the individual.
Learning is more effective when students enjoy what they are doing.
Learning is more meaningful and enjoyable when content (knowledge) and process (thinking skills, methods of inquiry) are learned within the context of real problems.
Students’ constructions of meaning are as important as teachers’ instructions. (Renzulli, 1995, p. xxi).
Constructivist learning theory (Bruner, 1960; Dewey, 1913; Piaget, 1975; Vygotsky, 1978) lies at the heart of enrichment teaching and learning. A basic premise in constructivism is that learners actively construct their own perspective of knowledge by choosing relevant new material, organizing it, and synthesizing it with what they already know and believe. Meaningful learning is facilitated when students make multiple connections between the new information and existing cognitive models (Michael, 2006).
Active learning, in which students are actively engaged in learning activities, is closely aligned with constructivism, and is supported by research findings (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Lambert & McCombs, 1998; Mayer, 2003, 2004; Prince, 2004). Enrichment clusters facilitate active learning through inductive, collaborative, and authentic learning. Students learn to solve problems in ambiguous situations as they become responsible for their own learning. Facilitators—teachers, parents, or community volunteers—function as coaches or mentors, providing direction and feedback, guiding, encouraging, and clarifying (Renzulli, 1994).
Inductive teaching and learning
Deductive and inductive teaching and learning represent two ends of a dichotomy. Schools are generally based on the deductive model: discrete skills are taught based on a scope and sequence and time constraints. In contrast, enrichment clusters are based on the inductive model, which occurs more naturally outside the school environment, in an office or laboratory, and includes identifying a problem, analyzing and synthesizing relevant information in an attempt to solve the problem, and communicating the results to a real-world audience (Renzulli, Gentry, & Reis, 2004).
Inductive methods are student-centered, in that students take on more responsibility for their learning than in the traditional deductive approach. As students are presented with a challenge, they realize the need for particular skills and information, and acquiring that knowledge becomes part of the learning activity. New information is “situated” in the context of its real-world applications and its relationship to other areas of knowledge, so students can more readily link it to existing cognitive models (Bransford et al., 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1990; Prince & Felder, 2006). Inductive methods promote a deep approach to learning and greater transfer of concepts (Norman & Schmidt, 1992), and can stimulate intellectual development (Felder & Brent, 2004.)
Authentic learning
Enrichment clusters focus on authentic learning, in which students function as practicing professionals, using relevant knowledge and skills to create products, services, or performances in order to solve problems similar to those found in the real world (Renzulli, 1997; Renzulli et al., 2004). Objectives for content and process are not determined in advance. Instead, as students investigate problems, they gain advanced knowledge and creative production skills, and use professional techniques to communicate the results (Renzulli et al., 2004). Although products are important, the problem-solving and critical-thinking skills that students develop along the way are even more valuable.
Using authentic situations and activities to provide contexts for learning content and skills can motivate students. New information is presented in the context of problems to which students can relate, which promotes the development and use of cognitive tools, intrinsic motivation, and deeper conceptual understanding (Bransford et al., 2000; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Prince & Felder, 2006).
Collaborative learning
In social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), collaborative learning is encouraged: students construct meaning from experiences as they collaborate with more capable peers or adults within their “zone of proximal development.” Within each enrichment cluster, students self-select responsibilities according to interest and expertise. This division of labor mimics problem solving in an authentic context (Renzulli, 1994, 1995; Renzulli & Reis, 1997).
There is considerable research supporting collaborative learning in education (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981). Extensive meta-analyses indicate that working collaboratively has significantly more impact on learning than working alone in a number of areas: higher motivation and achievement, higher-level reasoning, and greater transfer of what is learned from one situation to another. In addition, students learn more and are more engaged when they work in a collaborative environment (Slavin, 1989).
Developing Enrichment Clusters
Six questions are used to guide the development of enrichment clusters. Although these questions should be answered by facilitators in planning clusters, students should reach their own conclusions as the inquiry process progresses (Renzulli et al., 2004).
What do people with an interest in this topic or area of study do? What products to they create, and what services do they provide? What methods do they use to carry out their work? What resources and materials are needed to produce high-quality products and services? How and with whom do they communicate the results of their work? What steps do cluster participants need to take to have an impact on an intended audience? (p. 75)
Research Related to the SEM
Previous research has focused on creative productivity of students (Hébert, 1993; Reis & Renzulli, 1984), reversing underachievement of gifted students through Type III projects (Baum, Renzulli, & Hébert, 1995), curriculum compacting and achievement test scores (Reis, Westberg, Kulikowich, & Purcell, 1998), and the effect of SEM participation on students’ and teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education (Olenchak & Renzulli, 1989) and students’ attitudes toward learning (Olenchak, 1990).
Few studies have focused specifically on enrichment clusters. A study of enrichment clusters in two elementary schools examined ways in which advanced content and methodologies were used in clusters and the transfer of those strategies to regular classroom teaching (Reis, Gentry, & Maxfield, 1998; Reis, Gentry, & Park, 1995). Most facilitators believed that they used challenging concepts in their clusters by teaching authentic methods of inquiry and tools of the trade, by using advanced vocabulary, and by having students develop a product or service related to the topic. In addition, more than half of the teachers reported integrating practices used in enrichment clusters into their classroom teaching. Morgan (2007) found that parents, teachers, and students gave high ratings to an enrichment cluster program for 5- to 7-year-old gifted students. In particular, parents valued the academic challenges and interactions with other gifted children. Teachers felt that students were more motivated and more cooperative when working with other children.
The current study is the first to focus on the experiences and perceptions of enrichment specialists who actually held primary responsibility for organizing and implementing enrichment clusters in their schools. The perceptions of the participants hold particular value, as the success of clusters depends heavily on the ability of the specialist to effectively plan and organize clusters so that they meet the needs of administrators, teachers, students, and parents.
Method
Through qualitative interviews, the author examined the experiences and perceptions of two teachers who led the implementation process in their schools. Goals of the study were to understand how the teachers felt about clusters, what factors they perceived as necessary for success, and how the schools adapted enrichment clusters to fit their particular needs.
Research Questions
Specific research questions for this study were
What were the participants’ perceptions of the implementation process in their schools?
What was required in order for enrichment clusters to be successful?
How did the schools adapt the enrichment cluster concept to suit their particular needs?
Research Design
By using a case study approach, the researcher was able to explore the perceptions of teachers who coordinated the planning and implementation of enrichment clusters at their schools. A case study is appropriate for “how” and “why” questions about contemporary events that are not under the researcher’s control (Yin, 1994). These events occur in a particular context and are investigated within that context. This study focused on the implementation of enrichment clusters within the context of the school setting.
Participants/Setting
In winter 2012, an e-mail invitation asking for participation in this study was sent to six teachers, each of whom was listed as the contact person for his or her school on the SEM Directory website (http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/semhpage.html). Two teachers responded and were invited to interview with the researcher. Both teachers served as the enrichment specialists for the gifted programs at their schools. As such, their roles included planning, scheduling, and providing resources and leadership in developing activities for enrichment clusters, as well as teaching gifted students.
Teacher A was in her fifth year of teaching. She taught high school social studies for 1 year, and then moved to the elementary level to teach gifted students. She has had her gifted endorsement for several years and recently received her specialist degree (EdS) in elementary education. During the summer of 2011, Teacher A and a classroom teacher from her school attended Confratute, the summer institute at the University of Connecticut. The principal of the school attended Confratute in 2010, and another gifted teacher attended in 2009.
Teacher B had been teaching gifted students at the middle school and the elementary level for about 20 years, including 8 years at her current school. She was certified in elementary education and received her gifted endorsement about 20 years ago. Teacher B did not attend Confratute, although another gifted teacher, the principal, and two classroom teachers from the school attended in 2010.
The schools in the study were part of a consolidated city–county school system of 11,650 students located in a midsized southeastern city. The district includes a high percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch (FRL; 79%) and those with limited English proficiency (LEP; 12%), and is made up primarily of Black (53%), Hispanic (21%), and White (19%) students. The two schools differed in demographics in several significant areas. One school had a total of 475 students (Pre-K through Grade 5), with 53% FRL and 6% LEP. There were equal percentages of Black (42%) and White (42%) students, with smaller numbers of Asian (7%) and Hispanic (5%). The other school had a total of 601 students (Pre-K through Grade 5), with 87% FRL and 26% LEP. The majority of students were Black (43%), Hispanic (40%), or White (11%).
Data Collection
In-depth, semistructured interviews constituted the primary source of data collection in the study. The purpose of in-depth interviews is to understand “the experience of other people and the meaning they make of that experience” (Seidman, 1991, p. 3). The semistructured interview format involves predetermining a set of questions to be explored while remaining flexible enough for participants to introduce new topics or expand on issues they feel are important to their experience (Payne, 1999). An interview guide containing open-ended questions designed to have participants reconstruct their experiences with and perceptions of the enrichment cluster implementation process was used as the starting point for the interviews. (See the appendix.) Follow-up questions were posed as needed for clarification and additional details.
The researcher conducted one interview ranging in length from 1 to 2 hours with each teacher. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Additional e-mail correspondence was used to address questions that arose during transcription and analysis.
Participants were also asked to provide public documents that were pertinent to the study. Both teachers shared student interest inventories and descriptions of clusters offered at their schools. Both participants indicated that they asked facilitators to complete end-of-cluster surveys; one provided the results of cluster evaluations from May 2012 at the time of the interview, and the other provided results from April 2012 while this article was being written. The May 2012 survey consisted of open-ended questions, such as whether the size of the cluster met the facilitators’ needs, what they enjoyed most (and least) about facilitating the cluster, how the cluster experience impacted them as educators, and suggestions for improvement. Twenty-one facilitators responded to the survey; these responses were imported into the spreadsheet provided by the participant.
The April 2012 survey consisted of both multiple-choice items, such as how facilitators would rate the success of the spring clusters and how many times a year clusters should be held, and open-ended questions, such as suggestions for improvement. Forty-two facilitators responded to the survey, although not all respondents answered every question. The participant provided a summary of the responses in a word processing document.
Data Analysis
Data collection and analysis were conducted simultaneously in an iterative process (Creswell, 2002; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Inductive analysis was used in the analysis and interpretation of the data. In this approach, the researcher attempts to understand relationships found in the data without imposing preconceived expectations; “an understanding of program activities and outcomes emerges from experiences with the setting” (Patton, 1990, p. 44).
As interviews were transcribed, the researcher closely examined the data and coded transcripts line by line to identify patterns, relationships, and topics (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Codes emerged from the data, rather than being predetermined. Recurring ideas were highlighted with various colors to identify various categories, such as professional development, scheduling, cluster topics, and challenges. The different colored excerpts were then cut and pasted into a table, where similar categories were grouped together into broader overall themes (Patton, 1990). Existing categories were revised and additional ones developed as further analysis took place (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The analysis revealed four themes related to the participants’ perceptions: time and money, teachers as facilitators, focusing on student interests, and planning for rules, routines, and procedures. Organizing the data in this way allowed the researcher to consider the data from various perspectives and to ensure that the original research questions were answered (Patton, 1990; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Cross-case analysis was used to compare and contrast the teachers’ different perspectives on common topics (Eisenhardt, 2002; Patton, 1990).
The researcher next moved to a process of interpretation, or making meaning of the analysis. Interpretation involves “explaining the findings, answering “why” questions, attaching significance to particular results, and putting patterns into an analytic framework” (Patton, 1990, p. 375). Relationships were established by searching for consistencies between categories and themes, which were arranged and rearranged until they represented the researcher’s best interpretation of the findings. Careful consideration was given to how the organization of the categories contributed to understanding the participants’ experiences and perceptions. Member checks were completed with the participants in order to account for potential researcher bias (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The researcher emailed a draft of the analysis and interpretation to each of the participants, who were invited to make comments or corrections. Both participants indicated that the interpretation was accurate; neither wished to make corrections. This member check served as triangulation of the data (Patton, 1990).
Findings and Discussion
Both participants had a positive perception of enrichment clusters, and felt that the benefits of clusters outweighed the work required. Several themes emerged from the analysis of factors that were considered crucial to the success of enrichment clusters: time and money, teachers as facilitators, focusing on student interests, and planning for rules, routines, and procedures. In addition, the participants identified several ways in which clusters were adapted to meet the needs of each school.
Participants’ Perceptions of Enrichment Clusters
Although planning and organizing enrichment clusters required a great deal of time and effort, both participants emphasized that clusters provided a positive experience for both faculty and students.
[Teachers] seemed to find it much more valuable than they initially thought. The effort that they put into it, and the way they responded about enrichment clusters really showed that they started to see how cool it could be for the kids. Once they got the kids in their cluster and started working with them and saw how excited the kids were, that increased their excitement too. (Individual Interview, December 4, 2012)
Positive perceptions appeared to be shared by faculty members, for a variety of reasons. Seventeen of the 21 facilitators who responded to the May 2012 survey indicated that one of the things they enjoyed most about clusters was getting to know students outside their regular classroom. One teacher commented, “I think it has given me rapport and great relationships with individual kids I would not otherwise have known” (Teacher Survey, May 19, 2012). Seven teachers appreciated the collaboration between students from different grade levels: “Interesting to see multiage groupings and how students supported each other” (Teacher Survey, May 17, 2012), and six teachers mentioned student motivation: “It was so apparent how engaged kids can be when they are truly excited about what they are doing” (Teacher Survey, May 17, 2012).
Teachers who responded to the April 2012 survey also indicated a positive view. Fourteen out of 31 teachers felt that clusters were very successful, while nine felt that they were good, but needed a few changes. Eight teachers felt that clusters were average.
Both participants reported hearing positive comments from parents, as children shared their excitement.
I had a parent tell me that his son had a couple of doctor’s appointments, and they just happened to schedule them on a couple of Wednesdays. His son came home after he missed one [cluster], and he said, “You can never schedule it on a Wednesday morning, because I have to be there for my cluster.” (Individual Interview, December 4, 2012)
Comments from the teachers and parents support the participants’ views of clusters as a valuable experience, and are consistent with previous research findings. Morgan (2007) found that parents, teachers, and students gave high ratings to clusters, and Reis et al. (1995) found significant gains in parents’ attitudes toward enrichment from the beginning of the school year to the end. In addition, parents’ and teachers’ attitudes toward gifted education and students’ attitudes toward learning increased after the implementation of the SEM (Olenchak & Renzulli, 1989).
Factors Necessary for Successful Implementation
Time and Money
Both participants indicated that planning and organizing clusters demanded a great deal of time and effort. In addition, a substantial financial commitment was required for supplies beyond those normally found in the classroom. The amount of time and money necessary for cluster implementation was inconsistent with previous findings that clusters could be organized with a minimum of effort and minimal cost (Reis et al., 1995).
Time
Scheduling a day and time for enrichment clusters may be one of the most challenging and time-consuming tasks confronting organizers (Reis et al., 1995). Although multiple factors influence the final decision, there are two “nonnegotiables”: All students should be involved, and the time allocated should be respected on a par with that set aside for any other subject (Renzulli, 1994). According to participants, a great deal of thought went into compacting the daily schedule so that an hour a week could be devoted to clusters. Lunches and recesses were rearranged, and specials such as art, music, and physical education were shortened to accommodate the time needed. Compacting specials was deemed preferable to simply eliminating them during clusters, as all teachers still had a planning period.
One school scheduled enrichment clusters on Wednesday mornings, and the other school scheduled them on Thursday afternoons. Maintaining a regular routine appeared to be more important than the day and time. Both participants commented that when the cluster time has to be changed, students seem to have more difficulty settling down.
We tried a couple of afternoon clusters. For the most part, teachers hated it! There are a few that loved it, because it was at the end of the day, and the kids get so excited about their cluster, which is great, but they go home then, and you don’t have to have all that energy. (Individual Interview, December 4, 2012) We have done it a couple of times in the morning, and it winds children up for the whole day. So we found that doing it the last thing in the day, giving them about 10, 15 minutes to go back to their classroom and share, sends them home on an excited note. (Individual Interview, December 6, 2012)
Changes in the schedule also created problems with volunteers and guest speakers, according to facilitators: “The many schedule changes were problematic, particularly when coordinating with nonfaculty co-facilitators and experts” (Teacher Survey, May 17, 2012).
Additional scheduling decisions included the length of cluster sessions, the number of clusters per year, and when to start the first session of clusters. The optimum length for a cluster session has not been investigated, although 3 weeks appears to be too short and 12 weeks too long (Reis et al., 1995). For these schools, clusters have varied from 6 to 9 weeks, depending on previously scheduled events on the school calendar. When asked how long clusters should last, 27 teachers indicated a preference for 6-week sessions, while 14 preferred 9-week sessions (Teacher Survey, April 23, 2012). In addition, both participants suggested that avoiding weeks with school-wide activities, such as conferences and testing, seemed to lessen facilitators’ stress levels.
Allowing at least 1 week between student registration and the start of clusters is suggested by Renzulli (1997). However, both participants recommended a minimum of 3 weeks in order to take care of details such as assigning students to clusters, checking placements, compiling student rosters, checking room assignments, gathering supplies, making nametags, and recruiting volunteers.
Cost
Administrators did not provide funds for clusters, even though both schools in the study were Title I schools, with high levels of poverty. During initial implementation, each school’s Parent–Teacher Association contributed $50 per cluster to help pay for supplies. However, much of the cost has been borne by the facilitators, in particular those facilitating hands-on clusters such as jewelry-making, cooking, and science, which tend to be more expensive because of the need for consumable supplies. The lack of funds has impacted the types of clusters offered, according to the participants.
What you find is teachers trying to figure out how to offer a cluster that doesn’t take supplies or takes a minimal amount of supplies. So that changes the profile of the cluster. The children would have much richer experiences with the right supplies. But right now, when we don’t have enough money to provide paper for our teachers, you’re not going to have money you need to fund the cluster correctly. (Individual Interview, December 6, 2012)
According to the participants, schools need to be creative in finding ways to fund the clusters, such as grants and local sources, although one teacher felt that funds should be provided by the school district: “We should not be expected to apply for a grant. The grant should be an extension. Some of us don’t have money up front to get supplies, so reimbursement does not always help” (Teacher Survey, April 23, 2012).
Teachers as Facilitators
Although the teachers who attended Confratute were excited about implementing enrichment clusters, others were more skeptical. “We had to do a hard sales job on it. And finally, it was just understood that this was something we were going to do” (Individual Interview, December 6, 2012).
Professional development
Enrichment clusters can be valuable opportunities for staff development, as they provide examples of enrichment strategies and techniques that can be utilized in the regular classroom, (Renzulli, 1995). However, teachers unaccustomed to this kind of student-driven learning may require extensive professional development. For these schools, initial training for teachers and other facilitators focused on the goals of enrichment clusters: To provide an experience with advanced content and methodology, student exploration of real-world experiences, and authentic products and services (Reis & Renzulli, 1984; Renzulli, 1995). Three hour-long training sessions, utilizing PowerPoint presentations and hands-on activities, introduced teachers to the overall philosophy of enrichment clusters, how to develop their cluster topics, and how to sell their ideas to children. Ongoing professional development has been based on additional needs of the teachers as indicated in feedback from the previous session.
Learning has not been reserved exclusively for professional development sessions. One participant indicated that faculty often gleaned ideas from each other in more informal settings.
We try to check in at faculty meetings: “How are things going? Do you have any questions? Anything that you want to share?” A lot of times, teachers will learn from another teacher sharing, “Well, I did this with my group and it went really well. You could modify that for your topic too.” (Individual Interview, December 4, 2012)
Although collaboration was not a focus of this study, the participant’s comment provides anecdotal evidence of teachers sharing ideas and strategies, which is consistent with previous findings of increased collaboration between classroom teachers and between teachers and the gifted education teacher (Olenchak and Renzulli, 1989).
Facilitators in the classroom
Teachers and students in both schools appeared to transfer the inquiry process they used in clusters into their regular classrooms, consistent with previous findings (Reed & Westberg, 2003; Reis et al., 1995, 1998). According to one participant:
I have seen the style of teaching and learning of enrichment clusters, that more student-driven learning, the self-directed, independent investigation, trickling into some of the classrooms. A lot of people will say, “I decided to try this in my classroom too, and it really worked.” I think the kids are taking more ownership and trying new things. And I think part of it comes from clusters, because that’s what they do in clusters. (Individual Interview, December 4, 2012)
Survey results confirmed that 16 out of the 21 respondents felt that clusters would positively impact their teaching style: “I think this experience causes me to pause and think about how to offer similar interest-driven experiences to my students at other times during the day, not just in clusters.” (Teacher Survey, May 17, 2012)
However, some teachers also indicated that clusters created additional work for them: “Gathering supplies, organizing speakers, planning for the beginning, working with students that are interested but not motivated or just don’t know where to begin, all require a good bit of teacher effort” (Teacher Survey, May 17, 2012).
Focusing on Student Interests
Participants emphasized the importance of focusing on student interests when creating clusters. In both cases, students’ interests were used to develop lists of possible cluster topics, which were compiled by grade level. Initial categories were deliberately left broad so that different clusters could be developed from them. Each teacher then chose a cluster topic and created a PowerPoint slide consisting of a creative title and a short description, using action verbs that conveyed the investigative nature of the cluster topic (Renzulli et al., 2004). After viewing the slides, students indicated three to five clusters in which they were most interested.
Popular clusters included many built around hands-on activities, such as music, jewelry-making, painting, sports, drawing, puppets, and science.
Our cooking clusters were a huge success. We had four of those and they were totally different types of cooking. There was one that was cooking with books, one that did foods from around the world, one that did microwave cooking, and another one that was candy-making. We had one on bubbles. The children had a wonderful time learning the science of bubbles and making all different kinds. They made bubbles that glowed in the dark, giant bubbles, unpoppable bubbles, different bubble-making devices. (Individual Interview, December 6, 2012)
After students were assigned to one of their cluster choices, the enrichment specialist, specials teachers, and other staff members examined the makeup of each cluster, looking for possible problems with the combination of students within each cluster. Based on that input, additional adjustments were made. Participants found that time spent ensuring that students were placed appropriately contributed greatly to cluster success.
One thing we’ve learned is that spending that time up front can help eliminate behavior issues in clusters, because [students are] not mixed with kids they shouldn’t be mixed with, or they are really interested in that topic, so they’re not misbehaving. We really spend a lot of time going through and looking at each group individually, at the diversity within a group. (Individual Interview, December 4, 2012)
Planning for Rules, Routines, and Procedures
Prior consideration of routines and procedures was crucial so that students and facilitators began clusters with clear expectations. As unexpected problems arose, teachers and administrators developed additional guidelines to deal with those problems in an organized and productive way.
Transitions
One of the biggest challenges was ensuring that students and facilitators got to and from the clusters, as the entire population of the school moved at the same time. Students were not allowed to check out or go into the bathrooms during transitions, so that facilitators could account for all of their students. Transitions were planned well in advance and practiced so that children were familiar with the routine. The practice transition also functioned as a mechanism to double-check that all students had been assigned to a cluster.
Behavior problems
Although behavior issues were not common, they did occasionally occur. Students whose behavior disrupted the functioning of their cluster were sent to walk the halls with an administrator. One participant suggested having a plan in place to deal with repeated problem behaviors.
I’m going to suggest we have an in-house suspension room for anyone who misbehaves, because there’s no room in those weeks for a teacher to have to put up with a disciplinary issue. We don’t have a whole lot of that because the kids are very interested in what they’re doing, but the one or two that do ruin it for their whole group. (Individual Interview, December 6, 2012)
The enrichment specialist was made aware of students who might have problems, and behavior plans were developed for those students. At one school, a student with special needs was able to successfully participate in clusters because of careful consideration of his interests and communication with his teachers.
The first semester, I did have one particular student that I took out of his cluster halfway each time. We realized that he just couldn’t handle being in there the whole time. But second semester, the [cluster] teacher was just shocked to hear that he had had any issues, because it was such a good fit for him. (Individual Interview, December 4, 2012)
Adapting Enrichment Clusters to Fit the Schools’ Needs
Each school evaluated the success of clusters by asking facilitators to respond to online surveys at the end of each session. Survey results were used to adapt future sessions to the needs of the school. In addition, ongoing dialogue between administrators, the enrichment lead teacher, and other facilitators provided a constant source of information and suggestions. Some of the adaptations included students with special needs, new students, and kindergarteners.
Students With Special Needs
At both schools, special education students who were in collaborative classrooms participated in regular clusters. However, one school housed several classes of students with more severe disabilities. These classes ran their own clusters with topics such as art, cooking, and physical education, although some students were able to attend clusters with general education students. Whenever possible, a special education paraprofessional went with the students who went to regular clusters.
Kindergarten
In one school, kindergarteners were included with first and second graders, while third, fourth and fifth graders were grouped together. Kindergarten clusters were modified even more in the other school: Kindergarten students remained with their classes and rotated through five different clusters such as toy-making, Lego-building, or community helpers, spending 2 weeks in each.
We found with kindergarten, it was over their head and moved too fast. They didn’t have the skills that they needed to participate in a group with fifth graders. We’ve done kindergarten this way the last 2 years, and we’ve gotten really good feedback on it. (Individual Interview, December 4, 2012)
New Students
When students move into the school after clusters begin, it may be difficult for them to participate fully in their cluster, as they have missed the initial Type I and/or Type II experiences. The two schools had different approaches to this problem: One allowed new students to choose their clusters, and one funneled all new students into clusters that did not require experience.
We had 33 changes with children last semester, during [clusters]. A lot of new [students] came in. We tried to put them in week six of a cluster, and it just created havoc. So this year, we put them all in games and it worked out really well because anybody can learn a new game. (Individual Interview, December 6, 2012)
Limitations and Future Research
The current study is the first to examine the experiences and perceptions of enrichment specialists who held primary responsibility for organizing and implementing enrichment clusters in their schools. In discussing their roles, the participants offered a great deal of insight into the implementation process, as voices of experience. Their perceptions are particularly valuable, as the success of clusters depends heavily on their ability to effectively plan and organize clusters to meet the needs of administrators, teachers, students, and parents. The study indicates that even if the model is modified somewhat, as it was in these schools, the experience can still be positive, as indicated by the enrichment specialists’ and teachers’ comments.
The findings suggest that enrichment clusters can be successfully implemented in schools with diverse populations, including low socioeconomic status, limited English proficiency, and culturally and ethnically diverse students. However, limitations must be considered. The small size of the sample limits generalizability of the findings. Only two enrichment specialists participated in the study: both worked in the same school district and self-selected by way of response to an e-mail invitation. Additional research with a larger and more diverse group of participants would give a more complete understanding of their experiences.
Another limitation is the quality of supporting documentation available to the researcher. Both participants provided the results of end-of-cluster surveys used to evaluate facilitators’ experiences. However, questions were not consistent between the two surveys, and not all questions aligned with the research questions. No information was available on parents’ and students’ attitudes, as these were not evaluated at the end of clusters. Researchers should consider developing and administering their own surveys for facilitators, students, and parents. Results of these surveys could provide a wealth of information that could be used to confirm or contradict the perceptions of the enrichment specialists.
Because so few studies have focused on enrichment clusters, there is no longitudinal research available. The long-term impact of enrichment clusters on a school’s environment should be examined to see if attitudes and perceptions change over time and with experience. Additional research on the long-term effect of clusters on professional development is also needed to determine what kinds of training teachers need, and the effect of that training on classroom practices.
Schools searching for ways to enrich the regular curriculum can be encouraged that clusters offer the opportunity for students to learn advanced content and process skills within the context of real problems, as well as professional development for teachers. The findings of this study highlight the positive experiences of those responsible for the implementation of enrichment clusters: “They drive me crazy at the very beginning, because it’s exhausting. But it’s a good exhausting, because I know it’s all worthwhile” (Individual Interview, December 4, 2012).
Footnotes
Appendix
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.