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

Perhaps in the historical debate over enrichment and acceleration, a false dichotomy between the twoapproaches has developed. As Daurio (1979) stated, “Confusion over definitions of enrichment andacceleration often blinds educators to the communality of both interventions, that is the desire toimprove the quality of education for bright children and adolescents” (p.13). This seems to havehindered collective understandings of each approach, and created an unfortunate situation whereby thetwo are seen as antithetical (Southern et al., 1993). As Southern et al. (1993) state, “… even that theycould be set in opposition is naïve” (p. 400). They clearly overlap in both theory and practice:acceleration creates enrichment and enrichment is derived from acceleration (Passow, 1996). In thissense, Passow (1996) conceptualised ‘acceleration vis-à-vis-enrichment.’Therefore, it is not surprising that the Ministry of Education (2000) recommends these approaches beused in tandem. In the Ministry of Education (2002) principles, the terms pace, depth, and breadth areused – and these are code, so to speak, for a combined approach of enrichment and acceleration.“Combining or integrating enrichment and acceleration for gifted students is not a radical norrevolutionary idea” (Schiever & Maker, 2003, p. 167). Schiever and Maker (2003) used the concept ofcatastrophe theory to support a case for the necessity for including both acceleration and enrichment incurricula for gifted and talented students. The framework focuses on three critical factors: content,process, and product and how they must be both accelerated and enriched.Any provisions which are labelled as either enrichment or acceleration must be qualitativelydifferentiated. As Southern et al. (1993) point out, simply picking up the pace by offering anaccelerated programme of academic monotony or demands for basic facts and skills, with no room fordepth and breadth, would be nonsensical. At the same time, an enriched programme which did notallow students to move at a quickened pace, rapidly acquiring and using their knowledge and skills,would most likely be considered trivial, even boring. Therefore, the key elements of each approachmust be combined, ensuring a tempo, depth, and breadth matched to the individual learning, social andemotional needs, strengths, and interests of gifted and talented students. Sisk (1979) warned of thedangers of enrichment alone as well as the dangers of inadequately planned and unbridledacceleration. “Where acceleration and enrichment are concerned, the answer to programming forgifted and talented clearly is not an either/or proposition” (p. 237).Using the two approaches in tandem requires decision-making for individual students. Shouldeducators accelerate first and then enrich? Or enrich and then accelerate? Van Tassel-Baska (2000)believes that since acceleration is based upon matching instruction to cognitive needs, then it shouldbe the first step, serving as a platform for enrichment. However, the Excellence in Schools (2001)guidelines in the United Kingdom recommend enrichment as a first option, followed by acceleration.Passow (1996) recommended that the decision to use enrichment and acceleration as complementaryapproaches should be made based upon answering two questions in relation to individual students andthe curriculum:1. When is it more appropriate to alter the tempo or pace of instruction?2. When is it more appropriate to alter the breadth and depth of experience?Chessman (2003) also raises the importance of teacher expertise and time in combining enrichmentand acceleration.The issues raised many years ago by Hollingworth (1886-1939), a founder in the field of giftededucation, are the same issues we continue to debate today: How do we identify the gifted? Should theybe taught in the regular classroom? Should they be accelerated and/or enriched? (Klein, 2000). Sisk(1979) answers with:Optimum education for the gifted and talented should blend enrichment and accelerationfor an emphasis on excellence in education. Perhaps a new word such as ‘exceleration’needs to be coined. A rapprochement between acceleration and enrichment may well be thesolution (p. 237).51