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

The model reflects many of the principles of qualitative differentiation, and the supporting bookprovides a planning framework and activities for its implementation. Riley (2000b) describes it as aplanning model.REACH was designed as a ‘teaching model’ for gifted students. It has been adopted by the AustralianInternational School in Jakarta, Indonesia in the development of an ‘enrichment and extensionprogramme’ (AIS, 2003). It is also utilised by the One Day School (Brown, 2001). There is someevidence that indicates the model may be interpreted by some schools as a curriculum model(Tauranga Intermediate School, 2003). The review of literature yielded descriptive reports of themodel, but as yet, no research related to its effectiveness in enhancing affective and cognitiveoutcomes for gifted and talented students has been reported.Outcomes for StudentsCurriculum models ascribe to an enriched or accelerated view of instructional delivery, and VanTassel-Baska (2000) reports that there is a clear preference for enrichment-oriented curricularapproaches which enjoy “widespread popularity and are used in schools extensively” (p. 355).Paradoxically, she indicates that the most successful models, in relation to academic outcomes forstudents, are those developed from the principles of acceleration. She calls for further studies ofcurriculum intervention in order for educators to better understand the effectiveness of differentmodels in enhancing cognitive and affective outcomes for gifted students. For the purposes of thisreview of the literature, the research related to curriculum models which has been conducted isreported. However, despite the many models available for curriculum development and the Ministry ofEducation’s (2000) recommendation that these be utilised, within New Zealand there is a paucity ofresearch related to curriculum for the gifted and its effects upon affective, cognitive and culturaldevelopment.An international perspective. The two most researched models for curriculum development are theTalent Identification Model developed by Stanley (1991) and the Schoolwide Enrichment Model(1985) developed by Renzulli and Reis. Other models which have a research base to support positiveoutcomes for gifted students are the Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model developed by Feldhusenand Kolloff (1978) and the Integrated Curriculum Model developed by Van Tassel-Baska (1986b).The Autonomous Learner Model, developed by Betts (1985) is positively viewed by educators in theUnited States and other countries, including New Zealand, and it remains one of the most widelyrecognised models (Van Tassel-Baska & Brown, 2001); however, to date there is no researchevidence to support the effectiveness of this model (Van Tassel-Baska, 2000; Van Tassel-Baska &Brown, 2001).The Talent Identification Model is an outgrowth of The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youthand the research regarding its effectiveness has primarily focused upon the benefits of acceleration forgifted students. These are reported in the previous section on acceleration in this literature review. Themodel offers a smorgasbord of accelerative opportunities for gifted and talented students, includingearly entry, dual enrolment, special classes, curriculum compression, and grade skipping. Lupkowski-Shoplik et al. (2003) report that the model provides gifted and talented students an appropriateeducation, and as a result, the research findings of over thirty years have been overwhelminglypositive in light of academic achievement. As they state, “when differences are found, they favouraccelerates over non-accelerates irrespective of the mode of acceleration” (p. 214). Affective gains arealso reported: students have viewed their experiences positively, especially the recognition of theirabilities and opportunity to have contact with intellectual peers (Lupkowski-Shoplik et al., 2003).Within New Zealand, acceleration has not been viewed in the positive light of enrichment (Ministry ofEducation, 2000); however, the research supporting this model is overwhelmingly convincing (VanTassel-Baska, 2000).The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 1985) is recognised as the “single most popularprogramming model and for good reasons” (Davis & Rimm, 1998, p. 150). It developed from practiceand research related to the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977). Research surrounding thecontinuing development of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model is generally positive, with gains shown57