Differentiation models part 1 - Renzulli

The final essay for Education of the Gifted and Talented. It is two parts due to the length. The first part looks Renzulli's Schoolwide Enrichment Model. The second Handa's Learner Centre Differentiation Model. While both have much to offer, I feel that Handa has developed a model that is adaptable and provides an individual teacher with the ability to more effectively differentiate for all students.

Introduction

There are a number of different models of gifted differentiation promoted throughout the education universe. While many of these are interrelated in both concept and creators, the effectiveness of any given teaching strategy is, in the end, dependant on the ability of a teacher to implement the strategy in the classroom. In modern education in Australia, there is much variation between states and school regions and/or districts in approach to the identification and teaching of gifted students. With that in mind, it is the purpose of this paper to consider the effectiveness of two models for differentiation: Renzulli’s Enrichment Triad Model, with a focus on the secondary model, and Chandra Handra’s Learner-Centred Differentiated Model.

Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model

Renzuli introduced the world to the concept of the Triad Model of gifted development in 1977. Since then, following many trials and research, he and his team have developed the Schoolwide Enrichment Program. Originally, the model was designed for the top ten percent of the student population, though this has since been broadened to up to twenty percent in order to create a larger talent pool (Reis & Renzulli, 1989). This talent pool forms the basis of the gifted education structure within the school. Called the Revolving Door Identification Model, this is not a static group due to students having the ability to move in and out as appropriate (Gibson & Effinger, 2006). While this model of identification is aiming for inclusivity and flexibility, there is little here in place for the under-motivated student, rather it is relying on intrinsic motivation.

Once students are in the talent pool, they engage in lessons based around the enrichment triad. After being orientated to the services that are available, they progress to the differing styles of lessons, called types (Reis & Renzulli, 1989). Type one looks at content outside of the regular curriculum, type two at “process orientated teaching activities” (Reis & Renzulli, 1989), and type three sees the students engage in self-directed study that leads to the students becoming investigators creating their own product. The need to create such classes is a hurdle for schools to overcome.

The requirement for schools to significantly alter their structure provokes a number of challenges to the successful implantation of Renzulli’s Schoolwide Enrichment Model. Although there is some scope for flexibility in implementation, such as the guidance provided by Barbara Moller (1986) in implementation and the development of buy-in from invested parties, there remains a need for student and teacher to largely step away from the curriculum. The curriculum itself is to be compacted using services provided by Renzulli Learning™, enabling students to get on with learning the “Renzulli Learning System Profiler” (Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010) has identified. It is a system that requires investment of both the entire staff and part of the school’s budget.

The change within the school is to begin with a small group of teachers. Renzulli identifies this group as the interdisciplinary planning team, whose job is to develop the program to fit the needs of the school and the students (Reis & Renzulli, 1989). Renzulli highlights a major potential weakness in the model when he refers to the importance of having the whole faculty on board. Negativity within the faculty can destroy the chances of success for a program before it even gets going. The implementation of a program of this scale also requires that administration and regional directors are on board. While this should not by itself dissuade a school or faculty from looking at this model, it is an aspect that needs to be considered.

This issue is not helped by the nature of the segregation, particularly in the Australian context. There is a tendency in Australia to see gifted education as helping those who do not require it (Jericho, nd). That being good at school is good enough. The requirement for separate classes for gifted students within the school environment is generally frowned upon with little regard to the efficacy, or otherwise, of said classes. Renzulli (2006) identifies the need for effective change, requiring all parties within a school community, and further afield, to be supportive and involved. Again, this should not necessarily been seen as a block to the implementation of any program, however it is a potential obstacle.

When considered through the lens of June Maker’s principles (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016), the Schoolwide Enrichment Model kicks many goals. With curriculum content being compacted, this allows scope for students and the facilitating teacher to cover content more closely aligned with student interests. The goal of this differentiation of content is to take the student from a narrow band of interest/s, to a broader understanding of interrelated concepts and knowledge (Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010). The type two classes set students up for success, utilising a range of discovery, research and learning processes. The aim of the type three group is that students will produce a product that is truly their own; the result of a student lead project. An essential part of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model is the modification of the learning environment, requiring all invested parties to welcome large changes to curriculum and learning construction. All of Maker’s principles are catered for.

The Schoolwide Enrichment Model has much to offer, while asking much of the school at the same time. There are a number of, potentially high, hurdles for a program of this scope to be put in place. There are limits to what schools can do as well as limits to this model. Though called schoolwide, there is little for those not meeting the requirements of the talent pool. Instead, it is focused on gifted services and the “development of gifted and creative behaviours” in students with the potential to benefit from such a program, as well as “some type of enrichment for all students” (Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010). A bit like trickle down schooling. In the current Australian context, it would seem there is much to hamstring such a model.