Abstract
Children with gifts and talents benefit from participation in programs grounded in research-based models. Implementation fidelity, however, is a potential moderator of intended benefits. The purpose of this study was to examine one teacher’s fidelity of implementation for Type III Enrichment, an evidence-based gifted education practice and component of Renzulli’s Enrichment Triad Model and Renzulli and Reis’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Findings indicated the gifted education teacher implemented Type III Enrichment with fidelity; she adhered to recommended structures and processes, which she skillfully implemented, and student participants were responsive and engaged in the learning process. Audience impact was adversely affected by duration of the one-semester program. In addition, findings indicated the teacher supplemented recommended processes and these supplemental activities influenced student engagement in positive ways.
Keywords
Children with gifts and talents benefit from participation in programs grounded in research-based models (National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC], 2010). Implementation fidelity, however, is a potential moderator of intended benefits (Mihalic, 2004; Moon & Park, 2016; VanTassel-Baska & Brown, 2007). Implementation fidelity refers to the degree to which programs are implemented as intended by the developers (Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003; Moncher & Prinz, 1991; Mowbray, Holter, Teague, & Bybee, 2003; Yeaton & Sechrest, 1981). Lack of implementation fidelity contributes to superficiality of gifted education programming (VanTassel-Baska, 2006) and the degree to which measured outcomes can be attributed to intervention effectiveness (Foster et al., 2011). Subsequently, these factors can adversely affect support for and resources allocated to gifted education programming.
A recent study on implementation fidelity of research-based curriculum programs found “teachers routinely modify content in detrimental ways” (Moon & Park, 2016, p. 62). Moon and Park (2016) advocated more research on implementation fidelity of evidence-based practices. VanTassel-Baska (2006) recommended research to improve existing gifted education programs and to show gifted education learning gains are “directly attributable to program impact” (p. 209). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine implementation fidelity of Type III Enrichment (Renzulli, 1977), an evidence-based gifted education practice and component of Renzulli’s (1977) Enrichment Triad Model and Renzulli and Reis’s (2014) Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Findings from this study can be used to outline a process to guide and evaluate the translation of gifted education theory into practice at the classroom level and to correlate student outcomes from previous research (see, for example, Brigandi, Siegle, Weiner, Gubbins, & Little, 2016; Brigandi, Weiner, Siegle, Gubbins, & Little, 2018) to Type III Enrichment effectiveness.
Previous research using these same data found a relationship between participation in Type III Enrichment and students’ achievement orientation. Achievement orientation includes goal valuation (meaningfulness), environmental perceptions, self-efficacy, and self-regulation (Siegle & McCoach, 2005). Brigandi et al. (2016) found a relationship between student engagement in Type III Enrichment and goal valuation. Students who perceived their Type III Enrichment project topic as meaningful, interesting, beneficial, or as related to perceptions of identity (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995) were more likely to stay motivated and value the educational experience in hindsight than students who selected project topics that they later perceived as unsubstantial or faddish. Brigandi et al. (2018) found these same students had positive perceptions of their environment and credited engagement in meaningful learning, high levels of challenge related to involvement in Type III Enrichment, and trusting relationships with caring people as contributing to those perceptions. In turn, students’ environmental perceptions positively affected their ability to self-regulate. These findings are important as self-regulation promotes student engagement, which subsequently impacts students’ academic achievement (McCoach & Siegle, 2003; Siegle, McCoach, & Roberts, 2017).
Theoretical Frame
This study was framed in literature related to the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977), a component of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 2014), including resources designed to structure and processes designed to guide Type III Enrichment implementation. Program evaluation was guided by four common components of program implementation fidelity outlined by Mihalic (2004) and supported by a review of extant literature.
The Enrichment Triad Model
The Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977) is a model for gifted education, comprised of three types of enrichment referred to as Type I, Type II, and Type III Enrichment. Together, these three types of enrichment combine to create a student-centered model with a focus on talent development and the promotion of creative and productive giftedness in students.
Type I Enrichment includes general exploratory activities designed to inspire and motivate students by exposing them to a variety of topics not covered in the regular curriculum. Examples of Type I Enrichment include guest speakers, demonstrations, performances, field trips, books, laboratory experiments, and movies (Renzulli & Reis, 2014). Different from similar experiences, Type I experiences are followed by a debriefing process that allows teachers to identify students whose interest was sparked and then to offer those students opportunities for follow-up activities, such as independent study, internships, and/or collaboration with a mentor.
Type II Enrichment includes a variety of cross-curricular skills that help students develop their ability to think, such as to know, perceive, and reason, and to feel and process emotions. The Taxonomy of Cognitive and Affective Processes (Renzulli & Reis, 2014) outlines a matrix of Type II skills that include (a) cognitive thinking skills; (b) advanced research skills; (c) written, oral, and visual communication skills; (d) how-to skills; (e) character development and affective processes; and (f) meta-cognitive technology skills. Each of these skills is further delineated by a group of related subskills (see Table 1). Type II Enrichment may be planned in advance, may arise in response to student interest, or may be necessitated by a student’s involvement in a Type III Enrichment activity.
Taxonomy of Cognitive and Affective Processes (Renzulli & Reis, 2014).
Type III Enrichment activities are individual or small-group investigations of real problems based on students’ interests and skills with the aim of producing a product for real-life audiences (Renzulli & Reis, 2014). Having a real-life audience incentivizes students to create a quality product and develop effective ways to communicate ideas and information to interested individuals. Four objectives for students engaged in Type III Enrichment are the following:
To acquire advanced-level understanding of the knowledge and methodology used within particular disciplines, artistic areas of expression, and interdisciplinary studies;
To develop authentic products or services that are primarily directed toward bringing about a desired impact on one or more specified audiences;
To develop self-directed learning skills in the areas of planning, problem finding and focusing, management, cooperativeness, decision making, and self-evaluation; and
To develop task commitment, self-confidence, feelings of creative accomplishment, and the ability to interact effectively with other students and adults who share common goals and interests (Renzulli & Reis, 2014).
Research on students who engaged in Type III Enrichment indicated a positive relationship between students’ early and subsequent interests (Westberg, 2010), postsecondary school plans (Hébert, 1993; Taylor, 1992), career choices (Delcourt, 1994; Starko, 1988), goal valuation (Brigandi et al., 2016), environmental perceptions (Brigandi et al., 2018), self-efficacy (Schack, Starko, & Burns, 1991; Starko, 1988), and self-regulation (Baum, 1988; Brigandi et al., 2018; Hébert, 1993).
Resources for Type III Enrichment implementation
Decades of research on the Enrichment Triad Model have yielded a variety of action, information, and evaluation forms designed to support teachers’ classroom application. When used together, these resources create a structured process to guide teachers in implementing Type III enrichment at the classroom level (see Table 2).
Action Information and Assessment Forms: Resources for Type III Enrichment Implementation (Renzulli & Reis, 2014).
Note. TTP = Total Talent Portfolio; SPAF = Student Product Assessment Form.
Processes for Type III Enrichment implementation
Renzulli and Reis (2014) outlined a 12-step process intended to guide teachers in helping students to produce quality enrichment products, and to implement Type III Enrichment as intended. These 12 steps are the following:
Assess, find, or create student interest;
Conduct interviews to determine interest strength;
Help students arrive at a question or questions for research;
Formulate a written plan;
Work with students to locate resources;
Provide methodological assistance;
Help students select a question;
Offer managerial assistance;
Identify final products and audiences;
Offer encouragement, praise, and constructive criticism;
Escalate the process; critical feedback; and
Evaluate (Renzulli & Reis, 2014).
Whereas these steps provide a general guideline, they are not necessarily sequential and may be omitted or substituted “if the student can accomplish learning objectives in other ways” (Renzulli & Reis, 2014, p. 206).
Implementation Fidelity
Although it is important for educators to use research-based teaching methods and programs (NAGC, 2010), the evidence of efficacy is contingent on implementation as designed (Foster & Missett, 2016; Mihalic, 2004). A review of extant literature revealed four common components when considering program implementation fidelity, which include (a) adherence to intervention, (b) exposure or duration, (c) quality of program delivery, and (d) participant responsiveness (e.g., Carroll et al., 2007; Dane & Schneider, 1998; Mihalic, 2004). These four components in turn guided fidelity of implementation assessment and are described in more detail as follows:
Adherence refers to whether the program service or intervention is being delivered as it was designed or written, that is, with all core components being delivered to the appropriate population; staff trained appropriately; using the right protocols, techniques, and materials; and in the locations or contexts prescribed;
Exposure may include any of the following: the number of sessions implemented, length of each session, or the frequency with which program techniques were implemented;
Quality of Program Delivery is the manner in which a teacher, volunteer, or staff member delivers a program (e.g., skill in using the techniques or methods prescribed by the program, enthusiasm, preparedness, attitude); and
Participant Responsiveness is the extent to which participants are engaged by and involved in the activities and content of the program (Mihalic, 2004).
VanTassel-Baska (2006) stated, “The only real answer to critics of gifted education lies with strong, effective programs and empirical data to show positive learning gains in student populations directly attributable to program impact” (p. 209). Carroll et al. (2007) called for more research on the topic of fidelity, and Moon and Park (2016) called for more emphasis on fidelity of implementation of curricula and programs. By using the above-noted framework to qualitatively assess fidelity of Type III Enrichment implementation, this research responds to these calls.
Method
This study was part of a larger study that used these same data to assess the relationship between participation in Type III Enrichment and students’ achievement orientation attitudes and behavior (see, for example, Brigandi et al., 2016; Brigandi et al., 2018), including goal valuation, environmental perceptions, self-efficacy, and self-regulation (Siegle, 2013; Siegle & McCoach, 2005). The purpose of the current study was to outline how the classroom teacher in the larger study implemented Type III Enrichment at the classroom level, and the degree to which implementation adhered to recommended protocol. In doing so, this study adds support to the attribution of previous research findings to Type III Enrichment effectiveness. In general, this study adds to the research base on implementation fidelity of evidence-based enrichment practices and outlines a structured process to guide teachers in facilitating Type III Enrichment with their own students. The specific question this research sought to answer was, “In what ways did one gifted education teacher’s implementation of Type III Enrichment align with or deviate from implementation as intended by model developers?”
Participants and Setting
The setting for this study was one secondary school in a Northeastern state. Participants included 10 Grade 9 students, their gifted education classroom teacher, and six parents. Student participants were all identified as gifted using district-established criteria that included state and national test scores and teacher recommendation. Because students needed to excel in only one of the four core academic content areas to be identified gifted, including English, math, social studies, or science, qualifying test criteria were content specific. For example, to be identified as gifted in language arts or social studies, students needed to score 75 or higher on the Degrees of Reading Power® (DRP) and nine or higher on the Direct Assessment of Writing (DAW). For identification as gifted in mathematics, students needed to score a seven or higher on the Iowa Algebra Aptitude Test (IAAT). For identification as gifted in science, students needed to score at goal or advanced on the science section of the state mastery exam.
In 2014, 70 Grade 9 students were identified as gifted, which was 7% of the Grade 9 population. Of those 70 students, 26 elected to enroll in the optional fall semester enrichment course, which is when this study was conducted. After two in-class recruitment visits by the researcher, 10 of the 26 eligible students elected to participate in this study. Four parents completed open-ended surveys and two other parents elected to participate in a semi-structured interview.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), 80% of the population in the state where this research was conducted was White, with under 10% living in poverty. In contrast, the population of the participating school was racially and ethnically diverse with 70% of students from culturally diverse backgrounds. According to the school’s 2012-2013 strategic school profile, 53% of the 1,140 students were Black or African American, 31% White, 11% Hispanic, 4% Asian American or Pacific Islander, and less than 1% American Indian or Alaskan Native. Furthermore, 31% of the students were economically disadvantaged, as indicated by eligibility for free or reduced lunch. Five of the 10 student participants in this study were White, four were Black, and one was Black and Hispanic. With regard to gender, six students were female and four were male.
The classroom teacher, who was also a participant in this study, was a White female with more than 26 years of teaching experience in Grades K-12 and more than 20 years of teaching students with gifts and talents. She had undergraduate degrees in teaching in grades K-9 and Art K-12, and a master’s degree in gifted education and talent development. She was previously voted teacher of the year by her coworkers.
Data Collection
Data were collected over a 5-month period of time and included student, parent, and teacher responses in semi-structured interviews, open-ended surveys, student-completed action and information forms, and project assessments. The author developed interview questions in collaboration with colleagues to capture the phenomenon of participation in Type III Enrichment over time. Among other questions, the classroom teacher was asked to describe (a) the process that she used to facilitate Type III Enrichment, (b) a typical day in the enrichment class, (c) student progress on their enrichment projects, and (d) to reflect on student accomplishments after project completion. Students were asked to describe (a) their project and why they chose it, (b) their process for completing their project, and (c) perceived supports and obstacles in the enrichment process. Parents were asked to describe (a) the overall enrichment program, (b) their child’s project, and (c) why they thought their child selected their particular project topic. Interviews with students were conducted in the school media center at a time convenient to the student, including during his or her scheduled study hall, enrichment class time, or after school. Interviews with adult participants were conducted at a time and in a place of their choosing; the teacher and one parent were interviewed at the school and one parent was interviewed at her home. Seven student participants and the classroom teacher were interviewed 2 times, once while the students were engaged in the Type III Enrichment process and then a second time after students completed and presented Type III Enrichment projects at the school enrichment fair. Multiple interviews from multiple perspectives improved credibility of the findings and allowed for a more complete picture of the Type III Enrichment process over time. Two parents and an additional three students were interviewed 1 time only after completion of the Type III Enrichment project (see Table 3). Interview times ranged between 20 and 60 minutes. The author conducted and audio recorded all interviews, which were transcribed by a service. Final interview data from 21 interviews with 13 participants included 7 hour of audio recordings and 172 pages of transcribed data.
Interview Timeline.
A second data source was student-completed action information and assessment forms used to structure the enrichment process, including the Secondary Interest-A-Lyzer, the Management Plan, and a teacher-designed weekly accomplishment plan. Collected evaluations of processes and products included the Student Self-Evaluation Sheet, Parent Evaluation of Student Product, and Student Product Assessment Form (SPAF).
Data Analysis
The author, who has a PhD in Educational Psychology with a focus on gifted education and talent development, analyzed the data using inductive and deductive thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998; Miller & Crabtree, 1992). Deductively, the author developed a code manual including components of Type III Enrichment and aligned those components with the 12-step implementation process described by Renzulli and Reis (2014). Next, the author inductively coded the data. Guided by a six-step process advocated by Braun and Clarke (2006), which included (a) become familiar with the data, (b) generate initial codes, (c) search for themes, (d) review themes, (e) define and name themes, and (f) produce a report, she first submerged herself in the data. This involved listening to audio recordings, reading transcripts and short answer survey responses, and examining completed student work. To generate initial inductive codes, the author randomly selected three interviews and wrote summarizing phrases in the margins of transcribed data (Charmaz, 2006). For example, one student participant’s statement, “I picked my project because I’m really into Web sites, and just design in computer in general, so any type of computer application, that’s the field I want to go into, something with computers” was rephrased as “selecting project topic based on personal interest and future goals.” These phrases formed the basis for inductive codes and informed alignment of inductive codes to categorical codes. For example, the code using the management plan to support implementation was aligned with the categorical code Implementation Structure, whereas the code using the management plan to support student self-regulation was aligned with the categorical code Develop Self-Directed Learning Skills.
Categorical codes were deductively generated from literature related to Type III enrichment and initially included (a) initiating Type III Enrichment, (b) development of self-directed learning skills, (c) use of authentic investigative and creative methodology, and (d) development of a product that will have an impact on one or more intended audiences. A fifth category, (e) implementation structure, emerged during alignment of inductive and deductive codes to categories, which was an iterative process of condensing, collapsing, and recoding, and using maps to better see the relationship between different levels of themes (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014).
Next, data were uploaded into QSR International’s NVivo 10 for Mac qualitative data analysis software (2014). The query feature was used to find terms that were the same as or similar to codes in the code manual. For example, same word queries included the words interest and audience, whereas subcodes for methodologies included words such as research, creativity, and learning style. The researcher additionally reread the data to be sure the codes adequately and accurately captured the context.
Hard copies of student-completed action and information forms were also coded. To triangulate student interest, the author matched individual student descriptions of his or her enrichment topic from interview data to indicators of a preexisting interest in that topic from his or her completed Interest-A-Lyzer (Hébert, Sorensen, & Renzulli, 1997). Data from the Parent Evaluation of Student Product Form were used to triangulate verbal and written student data. For example, while describing her daughter’s behavior while working on her project, one parent wrote, “she had a great deal of interest in the subject matter especially on a personal level” (Parent Evaluation of Student Product, January 15, 2015), whereas another wrote her that her daughter “seemed to have a high interest level during the project” (Parent Evaluation of Student Product, January 14, 2015).
The researcher shared the initial codebook and preliminary analysis with two content knowledge experts, who provided feedback that further informed analysis. For example, the content knowledge experts suggested the researcher may have missed nuances in the initial analysis and cautioned against subjectivities that might interfere with objectivity. Based on this feedback, the researcher engaged in reflective writing and reread the data and related literature to inductively glean insight and capture nuances missed in the initial analysis (Boyatzis, 1998; Yin, 2018). New insights resulted in codebook modification, including realignment of constructs to categories.
A copy of the final codebook (see Table 4) was sent to the model originators (i.e., Renzulli & Reis, 2014) who confirmed the accuracy of the codebook; specifically that the implementation process for Type III Enrichment was outlined as they intended, and categories, constructs, and processes were correctly aligned.
Codebook.
Trustworthiness
Credibility of findings was supported by triangulation of data sources, perspective, and time (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For example, data sources included interviews, student work, and open-ended surveys. In addition, interviews captured the process of Type III Enrichment from the perspective of students, parents, and the classroom teacher. Furthermore, data were collected throughout the semester to capture the process of Type III Enrichment implementation over time.
Confirmability was supported through external audits (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Researchers not involved in the research process examined both process and product of the research study for accuracy and to evaluate that findings, interpretations, and conclusions were supported by data.
Results
Data provided evidence that the classroom teacher implemented core components of Type III Enrichment using structures, materials, and processes as prescribed by model developers, that she exhibited skill in implementation, and that students were engaged and involved in program content. These components were categorized as adherence to implementation structure, adherence to process and quality of program delivery, participant responsiveness, and duration of implementation. Although the first three components represented relatively strong intervention fidelity, duration of implementation was noted as a barrier that restricted project scope and limited audience impact.
Adherence to Implementation Structure
Researcher analysis of student work revealed the teacher adhered to the structured process recommended by Renzulli and Reis (2014) to guide students through the Type III Enrichment process. Adherence to structure was evidenced by teacher use of action, information, and evaluation forms, including the (a) Secondary Interest-A-Lyzer, (b) Management Plan for Individual and Small-Group Investigations, (c) SPAF, (d) Student Product Self-Evaluation Form, and (e) Parent Evaluation of Student’s Product Form (see Table 5). All 10 student participants completed the Secondary Interest-A-Lyzer, fully or partially completed the Management Plan for Individual and Small-Group Investigations, and the teacher evaluated all student projects using the SPAF. Although student work provided to the researcher by the classroom teacher included only seven of the 10 completed Student Product Self-Evaluation Forms and four completed Parent Evaluation of Student’s Product Forms, the classroom teacher confirmed all students and parents completed evaluations. The time between teacher and researcher data collection was noted as incidental to omitted assessments. One structural modification made by the teacher was the addition of a weekly accomplishment plan, a teacher-created to-do list designed to support students’ ability to self-regulate. Each student participant completed between six and nine goal setting accomplishment plans over the semester long course.
Student Completed Action Information and Assessment Forms.
SPAF = Student Product Assessment Form.
Procured by teacher, but not available to researcher.
Students also presented their completed Type III Investigations at a culminating fair, another indicator of adherence to structure. Brianna 1 described the fair stating, “a bunch of people come, and then you talk about your project, they’ll ask you questions, [and] read your [display] board” (Interview 2, March 19, 2015). Her mother concurred, stating, “we all came in and we saw it, and she [Brianna] was able to tell other people about it [Type III investigation] and to actually show them what hard work she put into it” (Interview, March 19, 2015). Robert described the fair as the most fun because “you get to show off all your hard work to people and you can walk around and see other peoples’ accomplishments, so it’s pretty fun” (Interview 2, January 14, 2015). Data overall supported the teacher adhered to the Type III Enrichment implementation structure recommended by Renzulli and Reis (2014).
Adherence to Process and Quality of Program Delivery
Data also indicated the classroom teacher closely adhered to the 12-step implementation process recommended by Renzulli and Reis (2014). These 12 steps aligned with the primary themes of (a) initiating the Type III Enrichment process, (b) use of authentic investigative and creative methodology, (c) development of self-directed learning skills, and (d) development of a product that will have an impact on one or more intended audiences.
Initiating the Type III Enrichment process
Initiating Type III Investigation was a multifaceted process that involved collection and analysis of student data, student-teacher conferences, and student engagement in activities designed to stimulate cognitive and affective processes. As an indicator of fidelity, the overall purpose of initial activities was to find and create student interest, determine the strength of that interest, and help students arrive at a question or questions to research that they found meaningful. These purposes directly correlate with Steps 1 through 3 of the 12-step implementation process. In describing adherence to process, the teacher stated, We always start with Interest-A-Lyzers. We find out what their interests are. I also do things connected to learning styles. Eventually, we get into different intelligences, so in the beginning process there’s a lot of figuring out who they are as an individual student. And then from there we conference; you know, they come up, and we talk about things that are their passions. (Teacher, Interview 1, December 4, 2014)
Brianna’s mother commented that completing the interest inventory really made her [Brianna] think about things she was interested in. We went over the questions together. Well, she read them to me after she had filled them out. I was impressed with the things she answered with. I thought it was good to get her thinking about different areas and things she might want to be interested in in the future. (Interview, March 19, 2015)
Individual student-teacher conferences additionally served as a catalyst to help students hone in on an area of interest, or as the teacher stated, “at an initial base level we’re looking for what are their passions? What are their interests?” (Interview 1, December 4, 2014). Charles described his initial conference stating, I was confused on what project to do and I said [cat shelter] was a possibility and she [teacher] asked me why I wanted to do [cat shelter]. I said, I had the best reasons. I had the best personal connection with [cat shelter] than any of my other things, and she [teacher] wanted me to do something that was true to myself, so I picked [cat shelter]. (Interview 1, January 14, 2015)
To further find and stimulate student interest in a topic, the teacher additionally had each student generate a list of topics they perceived as potentially concerning. Paris referred to the list of potential concerns as a “bug list” and described how creating the bug list helped her to hone in on a meaningful project topic, stating, “Well, first we [students] made a list of things that bugged us and when I showed it [bug list] to my teacher, she saw a repeating pattern of rudeness, so I took that as a topic for my project” (Interview 2, January 14, 2015). In describing whether and to what degree she was interested in the topic of rudeness, Paris iterated, I wanted to study it because I feel like rudeness is something that every day people struggle with, whether they face it, or whether they’re rude themselves, so I wanted to find a way to kind of explain rudeness, and maybe help find a way so people would stop being so rude, if they are. (Interview 1, December 23, 2014)
Paris’s mother confirmed the topic of rudeness aligned with her daughter’s preexisting interest, stating, “She [Paris] is always interested in social and world affairs, especially where someone’s rights have been denied or when something effects quality of life” (Parent Evaluation of Student Product, January 15, 2015).
Indications are initiating processes designed to find, create, and determine the strength of student interest were implemented by the classroom teacher as recommended by Renzulli and Reis (2014), and this implementation successfully supported students in problem finding and focusing. Although interest sparking impetus varied between students, for example, previous research indicated students selected topics based on perceptions of identity, long-term interest, or new and current interests (Brigandi et al., 2016), students overall indicated implementation processes supported their selection of a study topic aligned with a personal interest (see Table 6).
Student Selection of Type III Enrichment Topic.
Use of authentic investigative and creative methodology
The teacher skillfully implemented activities to support students in becoming accomplished investigators using creative methodology. Authentic investigative and creative methodology include (a) cognitive thinking skills; (b) advanced research skills; (c) written, oral, and visual communication skills; (d) how-to skills; (e) character development and affective processes; and (f) meta-cognitive technology skills (i.e., Type II Enrichment; Renzulli & Reis, 2014). As an example, after students selected a general topic of study, the teacher had them identify and explore 10 related subtopics, which required cognitive thinking, research, and communication skills. Robert described this process, stating, “you have these ten subtopics of your general topic and then you’re supposed to research them and then you’re supposed to write about them” (Interview 2, January 13, 2015). Paris described researching stress as one of her subtopics “because maybe I think that’s a big part in rudeness, being stressed” (Interview 1, December 23, 2014). Robert, who explored a potential future career in a technology-related field, researched career-related salaries and interviewed his uncle who was a computer programmer as a part of that process. After learning that his uncle received bonuses in addition to his regular salary, Robert expounded, “And then I compared it [uncle’s salary] to the median average of what the pay would be at [uncle’s] job without bonuses, and then I said what the job [pay] would be with bonuses” (Interview 2, January 14, 2015). To summarize, Robert learned the how-to skill of interviewing and used compare and contrast, a critical thinking subskill and component of cognitive development, to determine his own feelings about becoming a computer programmer in the future (i.e., intrapersonal intelligence).
To further support students to investigate their project topics, the teacher taught students to find, locate, and evaluate resources, which she referred to as “the research process” (Interview 1, December 4, 2014). She enlisted the school media specialist to help demonstrate how to use databases and analyze sources for authority, accuracy, currency, coverage, and objectivity. Robert described the research process, stating, The hardest part was probably the information . . . we have to get a whole bunch of information from different sites, and put it on there to make sure all the information is actually correct, and credible, so we had to look through a whole bunch of things. (Interview 1, December 23, 2014)
Paris similarly stated, “[the challenge] was when we were doing research, because they [the teacher and the school media specialist] give us a lot of tips, and stuff on how to find a Website that would help us . . .” (Interview 1, December 23, 2014). One parent commented that his daughter’s product, a book about the cause, effect, and prevention of sports related concussions, “showed how much research she did” (Parent Evaluation of Student Product, March 19, 2015). All 10 student participants specifically noted learning to research, as did two parents and the classroom teacher.
Student participants also learned written, oral, and visual communication skills. They created tri-fold boards to visually display their project information and orally presented their project ideas, research process, findings, and final products first to classmates, and then to enrichment fair attendees, which included peers, parents, teachers, school administrators, and board of education members. Several students recalled time spent completing the project display board, such as Alpha who stated, “I was basically in the library a lot and I finished the poster board at lunch” (Interview 2, January 13, 2015). Star reflected, “I think that my board could have been more eye catching, so more people would have came by [at the enrichment fair]” (Interview 1, February 25, 2015). Brianna’s mother stated, “she [Brianna] had typed up all the captions that she wanted to put on the board [and I helped] when she put the board together” (Interview, March 19, 2015). Brianna described how attendees at the enrichment fair “ask you questions [and] read your board, and then you also present it [Type III project] in class to your classmates” (Interview 2, March 19, 2015).
Presenting projects first to classmates escalated the Type III Enrichment process by allowing students to receive feedback and then modify and improve their presentations prior to presenting at the enrichment fair. Jay described the process, stating, Before we presented the projects in here [library where enrichment fair was held], we did in class presentations and I was the second one to go and it gave me a good idea of what I could improve on for the actual presentation, and what I was doing good I guess. It kind of helped me prepare. [Classmate] said just bullet your information in the PowerPoint because before my information was in a paragraph on the PowerPoint, so I bulleted it afterwards. Overall, [teacher] said it was really good. The only thing that I really needed to do was a spellcheck and then grammar check and everything. (Interview 1, January 14, 2015)
Charles stated his peers were “really helpful” in that they pointed out “. . . what’s wrong with it [Type III Project] and why I should add more to it or add work. I mean, they were really helpful . . .” (Interview 1, January 14, 2015).
Data also indicated students learned how-to skills, including reading, note-taking, and outlining. Such experiences were frequently noted by students when asked to describe an in-class experience they perceived as negative. Star stated, “we had to read this book . . . and then we had to answer a whole bunch of questions. I didn’t feel like that helped us, mostly because I don’t like reading” (Interview 1, February 25, 2015). Alpha, who described herself as a “bookworm,” stated, we were reading this book . . . and we had to answer questions on the stories. I didn’t really enjoy that as much [as other class activities], maybe because it wasn’t a book I wanted to read . . . (Interview 1, December 23, 2014)
In describing the same activity, Jake stated, “I had to work a lot harder to try to actually answer them [questions], because they were deeper level questions than just normal” (Interview 1, January 5, 2015).
All students additionally cited participating in affective training activities related to intra- and interpersonal development. In contrast to perceptions of learning how-to skills, students cited affective training as an in-class experience they perceived as positive. In describing one such activity, Jake stated, We had to try to keep the ball moving across the room, but we had to work together so it didn’t fall on the floor. And we were kind of racing with the other group to see who can do it faster. And that was fun, because we all got to work together to do it. I didn’t really know anybody that was in the class when I first got in it, but after being in the class, we all kind of became closer, and like friends. And I started talking to people I didn’t really talk to before. (Interview 2, February 25, 2015)
Jake elaborated that he enjoyed being able to “stand up [and be] part of a group where we all have to work together to complete the goal” (Interview 1, February 25, 2015). Axel likewise cited learning more about her peers as a time in class she perceived as positive, and described the related class activity as follows: I’m a fan of music and I love music. One experience I had in [enrichment class] was when [teacher] told us to bring a music video that was positive. And everyone in the class is different, so we all listen to different genres of music. I thought it was cool how people were bringing in different videos maybe from country to pop to rap to R&B. And I like that because all of the songs were positive, and it was different genres of music. So, you got to listen to what other people were listening to. (Interview 1, January 7, 2015)
Lilly cited learning about Renzulli’s (1978) Three Ring Conception of Giftedness as a positive class experience, and noted how learning about the theory helped her to better understand her own potential and how she differed from her same age peers, stating, Back in the beginning of [enrichment class], we were learning about the Three Rings . . . it’s what makes you a good thinker or student [or] person. The three rings were task commitment, creativity, and above average intelligence, and that was just a really cool experience for me to be able to see how everything fit together, and how you could improve how you thought, and the amount of things you could do, in a way. (Interview 1, December 17, 2014)
Despite evidence of student interest and engagement, all students indicated they struggled with procrastination. For example, Robert stated, “I have a record of being a procrastinator” (Interview 1, December 23, 2014), and Star stated, “I’m a procrastinator, so I usually put everything off until the last minute” (Interview 1, February 25, 2015). To help students persevere through procrastination, the teacher skillfully implemented a system of structures and processes to support student self-regulation.
Development of self-directed learning skills
The teacher stated she used the management plan, a timeline, and weekly accomplishment plan to help students manage and control their effort while working on their Type III Enrichment investigations. Time management, she explained, was “another layer” (Teacher, Interview 1, December 4, 2014) of the Type III Enrichment process and especially necessary as students were all in their first semester of high school and the course was structured “like a college course where they have a syllabus, and an end time, and end goal” (Interview 1, December 4, 2014).
Students corroborated the use of structured written plans and described how using written plans helped them to persist in their task. Alpha stated, “[the teacher] has these weekly accomplishment goals, and they really help” (Interview 1, December 23, 2014). Paris stated, “I’m a big procrastinator, so the papers she [teacher] gives us, like the accomplishment plan, help me keep on track and keep track of what I’m doing” (Interview 1, December 23, 2014). Star noted a combination of teacher adherence to process and quality of program delivery as contributing to her ability to self-regulate, stating, “She [teacher] was always encouraging me to turn in work. Besides the weekly [accomplishment] plans, she met with us [students] individually at least once a week to make sure everything was going good” (Interview 1, February 25, 2015). Similar statements included the following: “[the teacher] would kind of check in on us to see how we were doing and she’d give us feedback if there was something that we didn’t do right or that we could do better” (Jay, Interview 1, January 14, 2015) and “every time we were slacking, she would talk to us about it” (Robert, Interview 1, December 23, 2014). Lilly summarized, “we get pushed to do our best” (Interview 1, December 17, 2014).
Overall, students noted action information forms in combination with teacher skill, including oversight, encouragement, feedback, and constructive criticism, as key components contributing to their successful engagement in and completion of Type III Enrichment investigations. These factors likewise supported implementation fidelity as indicated by the 12-step process recommended by Renzulli and Reis (2014) and encouraged students’ self-efficacy and ability to self-regulate. When asked what she had learned after completing her Type III Investigation, Alpha stated, “Don’t procrastinate” (Interview 2, January 13, 2015). Jake similarly stated, I just learned how to manage my time better with projects that lasted a long time, so that you’re able to finish it. Because most projects I did leading up to it [Type III Enrichment] were stuff that would be a week or a couple days and not an entire quarter or half year, whatever it was, spent working on it. (Interview 2, February 25, 2015)
Charles iterated, “I believe that now I know that I can do something out of my reach. I just have to space it out and use my time well” (Interview 1, January 14, 2015).
Development of a product that will have an impact on one or more intended audiences
Data also indicated all students successfully created a final project product for an authentic audience: “People wrote books. People made websites, did drives, and collected materials” (Brianna, Interview 1, December 23, 2014). The degree to which project products were based on interest, aptitude, and preferred modes of expression, however, varied between students. As an example, Alpha stated that she created a painting for her project product because she considered painting fun and she “wanted to do something with art” (Interview 2, January 13, 2015). Her expressed interest in art was supported by responses in her Secondary Interest-A-Lyzer (September 9, 2014), where she noted past experiences painting and sketching people, objects, and landscapes, and by the classroom teacher, who described Alpha as wanting “the product more than the process” (Interview 2, February 24, 2015).
In contrast, both Paris and Lilly directly stated they worked with mentors and their mentors selected their project product. Paris stated her mentor suggested she create a brochure as a final product and this suggestion was “a last-minute thing because I couldn’t really think of anything better to do” (Interview 2, January 13, 2015). Lilly stated her mentor recommended she teach a class for her project product, and “when she [mentor] gave me her idea about what she wanted to do, how she wanted me to teach a class, I was like, ‘Oh, alright’” (Interview 1, December 17, 2014). Processes to guide students in product selection in general were not as evident as processes to guide topic selection. As a result, in the case of Paris, product selection was arbitrary. In the case of Lilly, product selection did not align with her preferred mode of expression.
Students’ sense of authentic audience also varied among students. Some students, such as Alpha and Robert, did not complete the audience section of the management plan, a possible indication they had little sense of a real-world audience during pre-project product focusing. Other students misidentified the real-world audience, such as Jake, whose Type III project was to lobby against the building of a recreation center on a local park by presenting advantages of park preservation to local decision makers. In his management plan, Jake listed his audience as “kids, students, teens, and park officers” (n.d.). Although “kids, students, teens, and park officers” were potential beneficiaries of successful park preservation, his actual audience was park board members who would hear his defending presentation.
Some students identified an audience that was broad and general. For example, Paris identified her audience as “children, teens, adults, and rude people” (management plan, n.d.) and Alpha identified her audience as “people” (management plan, n.d.). Other students had a strong sense of a specific real-world audience, such as Axel, whose ultimate goal was to lobby for the elimination of school academic eligibility requirements. Axel identified her audience early as indicated by her management plan (n.d.) and in her first interview (January 7, 2015), stating, I might get the policy changed to where you have to have certain grades to participate in a club, because I talked to [the principal] about it, and he said he wants to hear what I have to say. I have a meeting with him on Friday.
The purpose of identifying an authentic audience is to allow students to consider how practicing professionals share information and subsequently experience firsthand the personal satisfaction that stems from impacting the lives of others. Student participants’ reports of audience interaction and feedback provided evidence of Type III Enrichment impact. For example, Alpha, who created a painting of societal issues that was displayed in the school library and posted on Instagram, stated, “a lot of people kept coming up [to me] and asking what it [painting] was about” and “people I didn’t know followed it [on Instagram]” (Interview 2, January 13, 2015). Jay, who created a web log about the future of flight for “future pilots and society in general” (management plan, n.d.), stated, “I’ve had some pilots read it and they said it was pretty good” (Interview 1, January 14, 2015). Lilly, who taught a coding class and directly interacted with coding class attendees, commented, I want to be able to help more people learn what [computer] programming is because I had this general sort of feeling that everyone knew what [computer] programming was. But, as I found out, a lot of people do not, and so I really want to try to spread that. (Interview 2, January 29, 2015)
Some students, however, were still anticipating product launch after the Type III fair, like Robert, who while referencing the website he created on tips and tricks for novice video gamers, stated, “So once people start actually visiting this site it’s going to be kinda cool . . .” (Interview 2, January 14, 2014). Jake was unable to present his project as planned because the board of directors for the park he planned to lobby for and save had already vetoed the proposed recreation building prior to Jake’s scheduled presentation date. After being denied the opportunity to participate in the process of creating desired change and interacting with an authentic audience, Jake expressed, “I stopped caring as much when I was doing the work, and I lost inspiration” (Interview 2, February 25, 2015).
Duration
Duration of the one-semester enrichment course was cited by participants as a barrier to audience impact. The teacher indicated the need for more time, stating, “[students] have a hard time getting it [Type III] to their audience, and that again, gets to that time management piece” and “It’s just pretty tight time-wise to really get it to where you want it to be, but some kids pull it off” (Interview 1, December 4, 2014). Students also noted time as resource barrier, making statements such as “We were on a time crunch . . . the product part was very stressful” (Lilly, Interview 2, January 29, 2015), “I knew I had limited time” (Axel, Interview 2, January 13, 2015), and “there wasn’t too much time” (Lilly, Interview 2, January 29, 2015). Jay further elaborated how insufficient time influenced his Type III project stating, I took about a week and a half to come up with my project because I was thinking about designing an airplane at first, but I realized with the time that I had that would take way too long. (Interview 1, January 14, 2015)
Participant Responsiveness
Although student comments that supported adherence and quality of programming often also supported participant responsiveness, comments made by students during and after project completion further supported that students were engaged by and involved in the activities and content of the enrichment course. In describing differences between the enrichment course and other courses, Jay stated, [Enrichment course] is much more Socratic. There’s a lot of talking in [and] amongst ourselves. In most classes it’s just the teacher tells you something, you write it down, then there’s the test. That’s it. But in [enrichment course] you get to talk about things and actually give our own opinions on it. (Interview 1, January 14, 2015)
Lilly struggled to describe similarities and differences between the enrichment course and her general education courses but likewise identified student engagement as a key difference, stating, It’s very different as in [enrichment course] we were [similarly] graded on performance and memorization [however] we were also graded on who we were and how we did in everyday sort of things. When we were learning about the different kinds of learning [in the enrichment course], we did a lot of activities. And those were more so graded on what we did and how we learned than what we knew. [For example], when we were learning about visual [and] spatial learning, we did a lot of drawing activities. And those weren’t graded on how good we were or how much we could get done, but it was graded on how well we understood it instead of memorization like most other classes do. (Interview 1, December 17, 2014)
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to outline how Type III Enrichment was implemented in one gifted education program and to ascertain whether applied structures and processes aligned with those recommended by model originators. Findings indicated the classroom teacher implemented Type III Enrichment with fidelity; she adhered to recommended structures and processes, which she skillfully implemented, and participants were responsive and engaged in the learning process. Duration was limited to one school semester as a result of organizational structures, and this limitation was noted as a barrier that restricted project choice and audience impact.
Teacher adherence to structure included use of action information and assessment forms and student participation in a culminating enrichment fair. Teacher adherence to process included use of activities designed to initiate Type III Enrichment activities, encouragement of authentic investigative and creative methodology, development of self-directed learning skills, and development of a product that would have an impact on one or more intended audiences (Renzulli & Reis, 2014). These processes in turn aligned with the 12 steps recommended for teacher implementation of Type III Enrichment.
Although Moon and Park (2016) cautioned that “teachers routinely modify content in detrimental ways” (p. 62), findings from this study indicated teacher modifications supported students in a positive way. With regard to process, teacher supplemented activities such as the creation of a “bug list” helped generate student interest, whereas student exploration of subtopics escalated the investigative activity to appropriately challenging levels. With regard to structure, the teacher-created weekly accomplishment plan helped students manage their time and develop the ability to self-regulate.
In further documenting program delivery at the classroom level, findings from this study indicated the need for modifications to potentially increase successful outcomes for students engaged in Type III Enrichment Investigations. One such modification was additional activities to scaffold the process of product identification and audience impact. Although myriad designed and implemented activities supported creation of student interest in the project topic, few activities in comparison focused specifically on student identification of the project product and identification of relevant audiences. This need was noticeable in both model originator and teacher-supplemented activities.
Students in this study reported learning and applying numerous cross-curricular methodologies in the context of creating their Type III Enrichment product. This finding has implications for discussions pertaining to appropriate services for students with gifts and talents. Enrichment programs in general have been criticized for lack of structure, coherence, rigor, and challenge (Borland, 2012; Dimitriadis, 2016). The teacher in this study, however, used a planned scope and sequence to help students acquire skills needed to develop thinking and problem-solving processes. Students in turn noted the intense classroom focus on Type II Enrichment, which, in preceding research, these same students cited as contributing to a challenging and rigorous learning experience that they perceived as positive (Brigandi et al., 2018).
Limitations
This research provided insight into Type III Enrichment implementation at the classroom level; however, there were limitations that should be noted. Although data were collected and analyzed from multiple sources, the researcher did not directly observe the teacher’s classroom practice. Data from direct observation may have provided contextual information that led to new insights or pointed to issues requiring further exploration (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, this study focused on only one gifted education program at the secondary school level. Furthermore, the teacher had an advanced degree in gifted education and in-depth knowledge of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 2014). More research on programs at different grade levels with teachers of varying expertise could reveal differences in the ways in which Type III Enrichment was implemented and, consequently, differences in student outcomes related to engagement.
Implications for Research and Practice
This study has implications for both research and practice. With regard to research, this study supports the use of qualitative methods as a way to assess implementation fidelity of evidence-based programming. This implication is also a limitation, as program evaluation that relies primarily on qualitative approaches is relatively rare.
With regard to practice, this study documents Type III Enrichment structures and processes as outlined by Renzulli and Reis (2014), describes the translation of that theory into practice at the classroom level, and outlines strengths and weaknesses of that implementation. For example, outcomes show teacher-created supplemental activities positively influenced student engagement and additionally highlighted the need for added support to better guide students in the identification of relevant products and audiences. This documentation provides a lens to support future implementation by invested educators.
Previous studies using these same data found a relationship between participation in Type III Enrichment and students’ achievement orientation attitudes and behaviors, which include goal valuation, environmental perceptions, self-efficacy, and self-regulation (Brigandi et al., 2016; Brigandi et al., 2018). In 2016, initial Type III Enrichment activities that targeted problem finding and focusing were noted as important factors contributing to student identification of topics they found meaningful (Brigandi et al., 2016). In 2018, challenging coursework and trusting relationships with like-minded peers were noted as factors affecting students’ positive perceptions of the gifted education classroom learning environment and subsequent preference for the gifted education classroom learning environment over the general education classroom learning environment (Brigandi et al., 2018). Fidelity of implementation as indicated in this study correlates these previous findings to student engagement in Type III Investigations.
Looking ahead, gifted education programs cannot be successful without gifted education research. More continued research is needed to ensure students with academic potential have opportunities to do different and more challenging work, to provide teachers with structures that support implementation at the classroom level, and to look at the relationship between implementation fidelity and student outcomes. More specifically, more research is needed on evidence-based enrichment practices. Currently, secondary school students are served primarily through academic acceleration (Foust, Hertberg-Davis, & Callahan, 2009; Hertberg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; VanTassel-Baska, 2014), particularly Advanced Placement (AP) course options (Callahan, Moon, & Oh, 2014). Findings from this study indicate secondary school students additionally benefit from participation in enrichment.
Footnotes
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.
