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

elatively small. Stanley and Benbow (1986) found that participants in SMPY had enhanced feelingsof self-worth and accomplishment, reduced egotism and arrogance and increased zest for learning andlife and a better attitude toward education and other activities. Conversely, Gross (1992) reports that inher studies, the majority of exceptionally gifted students retained in regular classrooms, experiencedifficulty in establishing positive social relationships with their classmates. Some of these studentshave extremely low levels of self esteem. In contrast those who had been accelerated:…are able to work and socialize with other children who share, or can at least empathizewith, their interests, their delight in intellectual inquiry, and their ways of viewing theworld. These children are confident in their relationships with classmates. They areenjoying the social pleasures of childhood while, at the same time, experiencing theintellectual satisfaction of challenging academic work (Gross, 1992, p. 97).In cases of grade skipping physical maturation may influence a child’s self-confidence (Schiever &Maker, 2003).Gifted students may experience an inordinate amount of stress (Brown, 1993). This may come fromoutsiders where an expectation is placed on them to excel in all areas. Gifted and talented students canpresent a unique set of problems; this is when counsellors and mentors can play a critical role inhelping develop skills that enable them to work towards their own solutions. Supportive adults andpeers are an important factor in the emotional well being of accelerates (Noble, Robinson, &Gunderson, 1993; Vialle et al., 2001). Gifted students should have access to an understanding adult toinvestigate career goals, discuss personal problems and air issues of importance (Lewis, 2002). Adultsand teachers can help students accept their own abilities; like-minded peers make them feel lessisolated in their academic pursuits. Inclusion in accelerated programmes does not negatively affectstudents’ friendship bases, students report that they are more likely to mix with others of similarability and interests (Anthony, Rawlins, Riley, & Winsley, 2002). Olszewski-Kubilius (1995) foundthat accelerated students initially formed friendships with other accelerated students but later theirfriendship circle widened to include both same age and older non-accelerated students.Findings from the studies of SMPY students do not support concern that accelerated students maywork too hard and experience ‘burn out’ (Swiatek, 2002). The accelerates in the SMPY studies did notappear to slow their college education, take time off before pursuing graduate studies or plan to curtailtheir educational pursuits (Swiatek & Benbow, 1991). Accelerated students as a group are involved inabout the same number of extracurricular activities as non-accelerated students (Swiatek & Benbow,1991). For SMPY students, acceleration did not affect social integrations or self-acceptance andidentity and it also did not relate to social and emotional difficulties (Richardson & Benbow, 1990).The 247 mathematically gifted students in Parker’s (1996) study were found to be superior onemotional adjustment when compared to their peers. Parents’ concerns that intellectual excellence willpredispose their gifted children towards adjustment problems are not well founded.Enrichment and Acceleration: A Merged ApproachAs the literature review demonstrates, there are potential advantages and disadvantages of bothenrichment and acceleration. Examination of the research literature reveals that when carefullyplanned and systematically individualised, acceleration contributes to academic achievement; there areno identifiable negative effects on social or emotional development. However, much of the researchcited has been generalised, paying little heed to the different administrative or classroom-basedapproaches to acceleration. It seems that the most important factor related to the effectiveness ofacceleration is recognition that it is not appropriate for all students, but when carefully considered it isappropriate for some. On the other hand, the research also shows support for enrichment, although thisis mainly descriptive in nature and rather limited due to the inherent difficulties in generalising itseffectiveness across the array of provisions. Enrichment is also recognised by many educators asappropriate for all children, and herein lies a danger for gifted and talented students for whomenrichment may just become ‘more of the same,’ albeit with a bit more ‘fluff.’50