Young-Eun SonEPPL 612

1. The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) => the Enrichment Triad Model + the Revolving Door Identification Model (RIDM)

2. The Enrichment Triad Model: Three Types of Enrichment activities

3. The Revolving Door identification Model (RDIM) 1) The emergency of identification problems => A talent pool of students (15-20% of the general

population) was selected through multiple criteria 2) The combination of the previous Triad and new

RDIM => The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) (Renzulli & Reis, 1985)

♦The strengths of the model

♦The weaknesses of the model

1.The identification of more gifted learners

1.The substantial changes in regular curriculum

2. Flexible and multidimensional identification process

2.In the case of unsystematic implementation, the waste of time and resources

3. Curriculum compacting

3. The unsystematic compacting

4. The consideration of characteristics of individuals

5. The school-wide programs

The gifted educational situation in Korea

The recommendation of SEM model

1. Gifted education does not be implemented because of elitism.

1.The model helps the charge of elitism (Davis & Rimm, 2004; Reis, 1981)

2.The implementation of gifted programs in the private academy after school

2.TypeⅠand Type Ⅱ enrichment activities are incorporated into every class.

The gifted educational situation in Korea

The recommendation of SEM model

3. no know-how and experiences

3.many practical operation principles through organizational components

4. *The gap between high SES and low SES * The differences of the educational quality among districts

4.many research and field tests=> an offer of large amounts of practical know-how in diverse education settings (Emerick, 1998)

1. Baum (1988): When the Type Ⅲ independent study was used as an intervention for learning disabled students with high ability, it served to improve the students’ behavior including self-regulation.

2. Johnson (2000): Minority underachieving learners show that the emphasis on creative thinking serves to reverse underachieving learners.

3.Olenchak and Renzulli (1989): The SEM Model leads to positive changes in the attitude of students and teachers toward education of the gifted.

Baum, S. (1985). Learning disabled students with superior cognitive abilities: A validation sstudy of descriptive behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Davis, G. A. & Rimm. S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented. Boston, M.A.: Pearson.

Emerick. L. (1988). Academic underachievement among the gifted students’ perceptions of factors relating to the reversal of the academic underachievement pattern. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Johnson, G.M. (2000). Schoolwide enrichment: Improving the education of students (at risk) at promise. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(4), 45-61.

Olenchak, F.R. & Renzulli, J.S. (1989). The effectiveness of the schoolwide enrichment model on selected aspects of elementary school change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 36-46.

Reis, S.M. (1981). An analysis of the productivity of gifted students participating in programs using the revolving door identification model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut Storrs.

Renzulli, J.S. (1976). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 303-326.

Renzulli, J.S., & Reis, S.M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to-guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.