The Extent, Nature and Effectiveness of Planned Approaches in ...

value of Types I and II for all students, and the special creativity, ability and energy required by asmaller set of students (i.e., the gifted and talented) to successfully carry out Type III activities (Davis& Rimm, 1998). (For discussion of the research related to this model, see the section on curriculummodels.)Rogers (2002b) discusses three different types of enrichment, all aimed at broadening and deepeningstudents’ experiences. The first of these is ‘exposure enrichment,’ whereby new ideas, skills, andconcepts are introduced, and these should be rooted in and developed from the unique interests of thegifted and talented student. Enrichment of this nature is facilitated by student interest inventories andshort-term exposure to many different people, places, things, ideas, and so on. As such, exposureenrichment is appropriate for all students. The second type of enrichment Rogers (2002b) describes is‘extension’ of the regular curriculum, allowing students to “go more deeply and broadly into the ideasalready introduced in that curriculum” (p. 270). She distinguishes this type of enrichment from thethird, ‘concept development,’ an exploration of a concept which underlies or supports the knowledgeand skills introduced in the curriculum.Potential advantages and disadvantages of enrichment. As stated earlier, enrichment is cited as thepreferred approach to provision for New Zealand’s gifted and talented students. The appeal ofenrichment is probably rooted in egalitarian beliefs and principles, resulting in the perception that it isa ‘safe option’ (Moltzen, 2000a). Although enrichment may be offered across the continuum ofapproaches, it is sometimes explained as a ‘within class’ provision (Ministry of Education, 2000;Moltzen, 2000a). This may be another reason for its appeal to New Zealand educators, who prefer tomeet the needs of gifted and talented students in regular classrooms (Moltzen, 2000a).However, within class enrichment, based upon student interests, is good for all students (Rogers,2002b). In fact, Shore and Delcourt (1996) conclude that enrichment is a provision often offered up togifted and talented students, but which is appropriate for every learner. Enrichment of this natureincludes field trips, guest speakers, inquiry learning, hands-on investigations and projects, schoolproductions and plays, and so on, but as Rogers (2002b) indicates “No distinction is made in howenrichment will be provided for students with differing abilities or needs. Everybody participates” (p.272). As the Ministry of Education (2000) points out, this can be a disadvantage and “we mustexamine whether it is an appropriate solution to the learning needs of the gifted and talented” (p. 39).Passow (1996) distinguishes enrichment for ‘all students’ from appropriate enrichment for gifted andtalented students by posing three important questions:1. Is this an activity every child should be doing?2. Is this an activity every child would like to do?3. Is this an activity that every child is capable of doing? (cited in Rogers, 2002b).He believes that if the answer to any of these questions is ‘yes,’ then the enrichment provided is notdifferentiated or individualised appropriately for gifted and talented students. However, if educatorsreflect upon these questions in the planning and implementation of curricular enrichment, with theintention of creating experiences which gifted and talented students should, would, and are capable ofbeing involved in, then the criticisms of enrichment as more of the same busy work (Ministry ofEducation, 2000) could be curtailed.There are advantages of within class enrichment cited in the literature. For example, these programmesare viewed as being easier to carry out, more likely to be supported by parents, and offering greaterflexibility (Ellis & Ellis-Schwabe, 1986, cited in Clark & Zimmerman, 2002). Ellis and Ellis-Schwabealso believe enrichment provides more time for self-motivation, creative interests, and independence.Enrichment also gives opportunities for varied groupings: like-ability; similar interests; and/or sameage(Ministry of Education, 2000). As Townsend (1996) points out, enrichment of this nature is of aninclusive appeal because it sidesteps overt identification and labelling. Enrichment based within the42