Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Schoolwide Enrichment Model

A Brief overview of the Schoolwide Enrichment model by Reznulli and Reis

Steve Olejnik

on 26 February 2011

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Schoolwide Enrichment Model

Renzulli & Reis School-Wide Enrichment Model History Benefits
Drawbacks ` Supporting
Research The School-Wide Enrichment Model was developed by Sally M. Reis and Joseph Renzulli

Centered around Reznulli's Triad Model of Enrichment

Uses the Revolving Door Identification Model Sources Department Head of the Educational Psychology Department at the University of Conneticut
Principal Investigator for the National Research Center on the Gifted and talented
Was a classroom instructor and administrator prior to working at University of Conneticut

Research Interests: Talent development in all children, Using gifted education pedagogy for teaching all children.

Awards: National Assocation for Gifted Children's Distinguished Service Award. Named the Distinguished scholar by the National Association for Gifted Children Reznuli Learning. (2011). About us. Retrieved February 20, 2011, fromhttp://www.renzullilearning.com/who.aspx
Reis, Sally. (2008) Research that supports using the schoolwide enrichment model and extensions of gifted education pedagogy to meet the needs of all students. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/semresearch.html.
Renzulli J., & Reis, S. (2011) The schoolwide enrichment Model Executive Summary. Retreived February 20, 2011, from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/semexec.html
Davis, G. Rimm, S. Siegle, D. (2011) Education of the Gifted and Talented (6th Edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Pearson Education Inc. Neag Professor of Gifted Education and talent development at the University of Conneticut.
Director of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
Served as a Senior Research fellow on the White House Task force on education for the gifted and talented.

Research Interests: Identification and programming models for gifted and general school improvement

Awards: Distinguished Research Award from the National Association for Gifted Children. Type I Enrichment Type II Enrichment Type III Enrichment General Exploratory activites to expose students to a variety of topics and interest areas that are not normally part of the curriculm (TB 76)
Include activites like guest speakers, DVDs, and slide shows. The purpose of Type I enrichment is to develop areas of interest for Types II and III Primarily Group Training Activites
Teaches skills all students need at an escalated rate to help Gifted and talented students Focuses on 5 Skill areas
Cognitive Training
Affective Training
Learning How to learn Training
Using Advanced Research Skills and Reference Materials
Developing Written, Oral, and Visual communication skills Students persue a self-selected problem that leads to a product
Students act as the "Producers of Knowledge" not "Consumers of Knowledge"
Teachers act as guides and resources for students Developed in response to concerns identification methods were too narrow.

Expanded Level I and Level II enrichment to about 20% of the population

Uses test scores, parent, teacher, and self nominations to create the talent pool.

Once Identified, students are observed for evidence of task persistence, creativity or productivity The model continues to evolve with new versions SEM-R and an online version Reznulli Learning Student Creative Productivity
Special Populations and Affective Issues
SEM as applied to school change Research supports using the Schoolwide Enrichment Model in the following areas: Reis 1981, found students in the expanded talent pool produced equal quality work to those in the top 3-5% Baum 1988, Found that Type III enrichment can be used as an intervention with learning disabled students to improve their self-regulation, and self esteem. Herbert 1993, found that students Type III enrichment interests affect their post secondary interests. Also found that Type III enrichment serves as important training for future productivity. Delcourt 1993, found that Adolescents can be both producers and consumers of information. Also found high levels of creative or productive behavior at an early age is an indicator of student giftedness. Reis (2008) Reis (2008) Emerick 1988, found that out-of-school interests, parents, teachers, classroom instruction and curriculm and goals associated with academic performance, should all be considered when attempting to reverse academic underachievement Heal 1989, found that SEM reduced the negative effects of labeling. Olenchak 1988, found that Teachers, Parents, and Administrators attitudes towards gifted learners increased in SEM Schools. Cooper 1983, found that administrators observed that SEM has an impact on all students Reis, Gentry, & Maxfield 1998, found that teachers who were trained in SEM enrichment methods implemented these skills in their general classrooms Baum 1988, found SEM was one way to meet the needs of gifted students with special needs because of an emphasis on strengths, interests, and learning styles. Braum, Hebert, & Renzulli 1999, found Type III enrichment could reverse underachievement. Benefits for All Students Benefits all students by tailoring curriculum and experiences to intrests and strengths.

When used with the Revolving Door Identification Model more students are engaged in enrichment activities limiting the number of students who are misidentified.

The Model is very flexible and can be adjusted to fit any school or district setting.

Newest version of the SEM incorporates Reznulli Learning online system that can be used to help differentiate content for all learners, and identify student interests. Program Drawbacks Level III enrichment requires community involvment, that may not be available in some areas.

Compacting is required to allow time for Type 1 and II enrichment projects.

Requires some pedagogy training for teachers to provide Level I and II enrichment.

Model suggests the use of enrichment coordinators to help work with students in the talent pool. In the current era of budget cuts it may be difficult to create this position. Underachieving Gifted students benefit from curriculum compaction, creating time for students to work on self-selected projects, increasing overall motivation.

Improves the attitudes of high abillity students with learning disabillities towards learning.

Helps students determine their post-secondary goals through their exposure to Level III enrichment.

Increases students plans for post-secondary education from 2.6 years to 4.o years.

Allows students to be both "Producers" and "Consumers" of knowledge giving students an opportunity to develop interpersonal and leadership skills. Benefits for Gifted Learners Research supports using parts of the SEM with all students.

This model is especially useful for highly talented students who want to interact with the community to enrich their learning.

Because curriculum compaction is a key component of the model, students should have advanced content knowledge Maximizing the SEM Reis (2008)
Full transcript