495996
research-article2013
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244013484914SAGE OpenSwicord et al.
Article
“Just What I Need”: Gifted Students’
Perceptions of One Online Learning
System
SAGE Open
April-June 2013: 1–10
© The Author(s) 2013
DOI: 10.1177/2158244013484914
sgo.sagepub.com
Barbara Swicord1, Jaclyn M. Chancey2
and Micah N. Bruce-Davis2
Abstract
Little research exists on the nature of the interactions between gifted students and technology, specifically the phenomenon
of gifted adolescents using Internet-based learning tools. This qualitative study explores how students use the Renzulli
Learning System (RLS), an online educational profile with a matching database that provides enrichment resources. The
student sample included nine identified gifted and talented seventh- and eighth-grade students in an urban school district
in Connecticut. Most of the students had been using RLS for about 2 years. The students participated in an electronic
questionnaire and were interviewed during two semistructured interviews. The research questions were centered on how
the students were using RLS at school. Student answers suggested several themes regarding the effectiveness of RLS as a tool
for school success, its engaging quality, and selective independence.
Keywords
Renzulli, gifted, adolescent, online
Although the need for differentiated educational experiences
for gifted students is well documented (e.g., Renzulli &
Smith, 1979; Robinson, 1990; Tomlinson, 1997; VanTasselBaska & Stambaugh, 2005), evidence indicates that differentiation is inconsistently implemented (Archambault et al.,
1993; Moon, Tomlinson, & Callahan, 1995; VanTasselBaska & Stambaugh, 2005). Teachers who wish to differentiate curriculum for high ability learners face barriers such as
the lack of planning time, the need to modify curriculum, and
the lack of training in meeting the academic needs of gifted
students. (Tomlinson, 1994, 1999; VanTassel-Baska &
Stambaugh, 2005; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, &
Salvin, 1993). Online tools have the potential to address
these barriers, enabling students of all ability levels and age
levels to find content that can challenge them at appropriate
levels. Classroom technology use has been linked to educational outcomes (Azzam, 2006; Bain & Ross, 2000; R.
Cradler & Cradler, 1999; J. Cradler, McNabb, Freeman, &
Burchett, 2002), but there has been almost no research on the
use of specific technology tools with gifted students.
The Renzulli Learning System (RLS) is an interactive
online program that matches student interests, learning
styles, and expression styles with a wide array of educational activities and resources that are designed to enrich
students’ learning processes. Students using RLS have
opportunities to explore, discover, learn, and create using
current technology resources independently and in a prescreened web environment. This qualitative study describes
the use of RLS from the perspectives of gifted and talented
students who use the system to complete school projects.
This study may help to describe the efforts necessary to
increase gifted students’ engagement at school through
online learning, to assist educators in planning for these students, and in better understanding how these students like to
learn and prefer to work at school.
Literature Review
There is no single definition of giftedness or gifted learners.
The field of gifted education generally presents the belief
that gifted individuals are those who have abilities in one or
more domains that are sufficiently advanced as to require
modifications in educational settings established for average
students. For example, the federal definition of giftedness
1
National Society for the Gifted and Talented, Stamford, CT, USA
University of Connecticut, Storrs, USA
2
Corresponding Author:
Barbara Swicord, National Society for the Gifted and Talented,
Summer Institute for the Gifted, River Plaza, 9 West Broad Street,
Stamford, CT 06902-3788, USA.
Email: bswicord@giftedstudy.org
2
specifies a wide range of domains in which students could
demonstrate high levels of talent or show the potential for
such talent (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). While
earlier definitions of giftedness were based almost exclusively on a general intelligence factor, often defined by IQ
(Galton, 1962; Terman, 1926), newer conceptions expand
that definition to other abilities and measures (e.g., Borland,
2003; Borland & Wright, 1994; Ford, 1998; Frasier et al.,
1995).
For the purpose of this study, another expanded operational definition of giftedness is used. Renzulli (1978)
defined gifted behaviors as the result of above-average ability, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity combined and applied to any potentially valuable area
of human performance. Under this definition, gifted learners
are those who have the potential to demonstrate gifted behaviors in one or more areas, and the goal of gifted education
programs is to develop such behaviors. This is also the definition of giftedness underpinning the RLS.
Meeting the Academic Needs of Gifted Learners
Exceptionally capable students exhibit characteristics that
challenge the efficacy of the traditional American educational system (Karnes & Bean, 2001; Plucker & Callahan,
2008; Renzulli, Gubbins, McMillen, Eckert, & Little, 2009).
Those that demonstrate advanced ability in one or more academic areas may be poorly served by age-based placement
(Davis, 2006; Horowitz, Subotnik, & Matthews, 2009;
Tomlinson, 1999), and asynchronous development of abilities may pose difficulties for strictly acceleration-based services (Karnes & Bean, 2001; Kearney, 1996). Gifted students
may also differ from their peers in their preferred thinking
styles (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1993) and in their ability to
make intuitive conceptual connections (Sak, 2004). The
Council for Exceptional Children (2002) stated that, to serve
gifted students appropriately, teachers should match their
instructional strategies to the specific learning needs of the
students and that the students should receive an appropriately differentiated curriculum or have access to the full
range of curriculum (through distance education, acceleration, or other specially designed programs).
There is disagreement within the field of gifted education
as to what would constitute the best curriculum and instruction for gifted students (e.g., Borland, 2003; Renzulli et al.,
2009). VanTassel-Baska and Brown (2007) identified six
curricular models that showed some evidence of being effective with gifted learners. These models generally involved
inquiry-based learning within academic disciplines or fields.
The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM; Renzulli & Reis,
1997), which is based on Renzulli’s (1978) definition of giftedness and in turn is the foundation for the design of RLS,
was one of the models with the longest history of use and
research. In the SEM, a talent pool of students with the
potential for gifted behaviors is identified through a variety
SAGE Open
of measures (Renzulli, Reis, & Smith, 1981). Identified students are then eligible for a continuum of services, including
differentiation based on assessed interests and learning
styles. Curriculum compacting also is used to eliminate
instruction in material already mastered and allows for substitute alternative learning activities (Reis, Burns, & Renzulli,
1992; Renzulli & Smith, 1979). A major goal of SEM is for
identified students to complete Type III projects: investigative activities and artistic productions in which the learner
assumes the role of a firsthand inquirer: thinking, feeling,
and acting like a practicing professional, with involvement
pursued at a level as advanced or professional as possible
(Renzulli, 1977). Research on the SEM has demonstrated
improved teacher attitudes toward student work as well as
long-term effects of Type III projects on students’ later career
choices and productivity (Delcourt, 1994; Hébert, 1993;
VanTassel-Baska & Brown, 2007).
Barriers to Differentiation in the Regular
Classroom
Although there is a general consensus in the gifted education
literature that some form of differentiation is necessary to
meet gifted students’ learning needs (Council for Exceptional
Children, 2002; Kearney, 1996; Levande, 1999; Renzulli &
Smith, 1979; Robinson, 1990; Tomlinson, 1994, 1997;
VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005), and teachers may
agree that addressing academic differences is important for
success (Hootstein, 1998), differentiation has not been
implemented consistently. Researchers at the National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented studied the
extent to which gifted students received differentiated
instruction in regular classrooms in the United States
(Archambault et al., 1993) and found that third- and fourthgrade teachers made only minor modifications in the regular
curriculum to meet the needs of the gifted students, regardless of whether they taught in public or private schools or the
location and ethnic diversity of the school. Moon et al. (1995)
found that 50% of the teachers they surveyed did not differentiate instruction. VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2005)
noted that the pattern of research findings stayed consistent
for over a decade. As a result, gifted students are often not
challenged in the classroom (Tomlinson, 1997), and they
often spend much of the day tutoring others in cooperative
learning groups or reviewing curriculum that they mastered
years ago on their own (Robinson, 1990; U.S. Department of
Education, 1993).
Several reasons for the lack of differentiation for gifted
students have been identified. Structural reasons include too
little planning time, lack of administrative support, large
class sizes, and pressure to focus on low-achieving students
(National Association for Gifted Children, n.d.; Tomlinson,
1994, 1999; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005). Teachers
may be unclear about their professed beliefs regarding individual differences, perceive no need to differentiate for
3
Swicord et al.
advanced learners, or even hold negative attitudes toward
gifted students (Borland, 1978; Knapp, 2012; Lortie, 1975;
Moon et al., 1995; Robinson, 1990; VanTassel-Baska &
Stambaugh, 2005; Winner, 1996). Finally, there are obstacles
related to teacher knowledge and skills. Teachers may receive
very little training in the needs of gifted students, be unable
to manage effectively a differentiated classroom, have insufficient subject matter knowledge for in-depth explorations,
or be uncomfortable modifying a predesigned curriculum
(Stigler & Hiebert, 1999; Tomlinson, 1994, 1999; VanTasselBaska & Stambaugh, 2005; Westberg et al., 1993). Some of
these obstacles may be addressed through professional
development (Hultgren & Seeley, 1982; Reis & Westberg,
1994; Reis et al., 1993), but others could benefit from making additional tools available to teachers.
Meeting Gifted Learners’ Needs Through
Technology
Individualized learning via the Internet holds promise as students pursue study based on interests and skills rather than
on age (Anderson, 2004; J. Cradler et al., 2002; Field, 2009;
Leu, Leu, & Coiro, 2004; Renzulli & Reis, 2007; Sheffield,
2007). Students already use the Internet and other technology for a variety of purposes. In 2005, children ages 8 to 18
typically spent approximately 8.5 hr each day using media;
2 hr of that time was spent using multiple media and more
than 1 hr was spent using a computer (Roberts, Foehr, &
Rideout, 2005). Furthermore, a 2005 Pew Study reported
that 87% of adolescents aged 12 to 17 used the Internet, and
half of those used it daily (Lenhart, Hitlin, & Madden, 2005).
Students who use the Internet at home are frustrated because
they cannot use technology how, when, and where they want
in their classes (Project Tomorrow, 2006), and they believe
that technology can enrich their learning experience (Lenhart
et al., 2005; Project Tomorrow, 2006; Sheffield, 2007).
Schools’ technology infrastructure is also growing. By June
of 2000, more than 95% of U.S. schools and 72% of classrooms had access to online Internet technology (CEO Forum
on Education & Technology, 2000). According to Azzam
(2006), more than half of teachers use technology in their
classroom instruction.
Research has linked technology and educational attainment in U.S. classrooms. For example, Bain and Ross (2000)
found that careful alignment between content-area learning
standards and carefully selected technology can significantly
increase student achievement scores. When evaluating the
results of a school system’s technology grant, R. Cradler and
Cradler (1999) reported that teachers observed significant
changes in their students’ skills and knowledge acquisition
upon completion of their first multimedia project. In a follow-up study, “teachers reported increased student knowledge in: research skills; ability to apply learning toward
real- world situations; organizational skills; and interest in
content” (J. Cradler et al., 2002, p. 47), suggesting that
engagement in technology results in positive gains, measurable and assumed. However, little research has explicitly
focused on gifted students’ learning through technology.
Anderson (2004) identified four capacities of online media
that are important to gifted students in that they allow gifted
students to have autonomy in their learning: flexibility of
time and place of learning, vast quantities of content, varied
formats of content, and rich contexts of synchronous and
asynchronous communication. This study explores gifted
students’ use of a particular online system (RLS) that possesses these capacities and addresses some of the barriers to
differentiation listed in the previous section.
Method
In this study, qualitative procedures were used to investigate
the phenomenon of engagement in gifted adolescents. The
focus of this basic, interpretative qualitative study was developing an understanding of students’ interpretations of working with RLS and the meaning that “attributed to their
experiences” (Merriam, 2009, p. 23) with RLS. The information gathered from the students enabled a first step to understanding how students engage and react to participation in an
online learning system.
The central question of this study was related to gifted
adolescent students and their engagement with an online
enrichment program called the RLS. The following research
questions guided this study:
Research Question 1: How are the selected adolescents
using RLS?
Research Question 2: What are the perceived effects of
using RLS on school behaviors?
Nine middle school students in Grades 7 and 8 were
selected to participate in this study. These students attended
a public school in an urban district in Connecticut, had been
identified for the school district’s gifted program, and were
currently using RLS. The students’ gifted teacher selected
the students based on a set of researcher-created criteria,
including usage of RLS, participation in the gifted program,
and exhibiting a range of school behaviors indicative of
engagement in the regular core curriculum.
The selected public school system has about 23,000 students, one of the largest school systems in Connecticut. The
per capita income for this district was US$16,306 in 2000. In
2005-2006, more than 95% of the students were eligible for
free or reduced lunch, as compared with the state average of
26.9%. The district is diverse in race and ethnicity with a
90% minority rate in 2005-2006, and this district is far below
the state average on Connecticut’s Mastery Test. The K-8
school visited in this study is in the largest city in the state
with a population of 140,000. The gifted program occupies a
room in a trailer behind the school, along with two other
classrooms.
4
SAGE Open
Table 1. Participants’ Demographics.
Alias
Ethnicity
Gender
Rahul
Mark
Cindy
Alicia
Jamil
Dari
Hayley
Cheryl
Naomi
Black
Black
Black
Hispanic
Black
Black
White
Black
Black
Male
Male
Female
Female
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Grade
Age
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
14
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
The students were identified for the gifted program on the
basis of teacher recommendation, academic and effort
grades, Connecticut Mastery Test scores, and online quarterly assessments. Students met as a team with the gifted program teacher 1 day per week and attended regular classes the
remaining 4 days per week. Transportation to one of the two
schools with gifted programs was provided for all of the district’s identified students. A child was required to meet academic and behavioral standards to remain in the gifted
program.
Students involved in the study ranged in age from 12 to
14 (four eighth graders and five seventh graders). Of the
nine students, three were male and six were female. Among
the eighth graders, the genders were evenly split. There
were four females and one male in the seventh-grade group.
(see Table 1.)
RLS
The RLS was designed to assist teachers with differentiating
or individualizing assignments for students based on interests, learning styles, and expression styles. The program
focuses on understanding what each student’s interests,
learning styles, and expression styles are and then providing
a list of thousands of activities and assignments that the student can engage in that reflect the student’s individual needs
and preferences. The program is student centered and focuses
on the development of a product. When students first log in
to RLS, they are given a questionnaire that identifies the students’ top 3 interests, top 3 learning styles, and top 3 expression styles. Based on that information, a profile is developed
and a list of educational resources (from over 400,000
screened resources) is populated to match each student’s profile. Teachers can then guide students through self-directed
learning projects or assignments utilizing sources from the
student’s personalized list of educational resources.
Data Collection
Data was collected through an online questionnaire and indepth interviews with selected students, using a semistructured
protocol. Each participant completed an electronic questionnaire (Appendix A) before being interviewed. The
responses to the questionnaire helped the first author assess
the appropriateness of the interview questions, and provided primary data directly from the hands of the participants. An interview then was conducted in school during 1
week, and subsequent interviews were conducted within 2
weeks following the first interviews. Student quotes used
in this discussion derive from the interviews.
The first interview (Appendix B) established a base for
understanding and established trust. The second interview
enabled elaboration of comments and questions addressed in
the first interview and sought the participants’ checks on the
first interview through specific questions (i.e., What did you
mean when you said . . .?”). The interviews, lasting from
30 min to 45 min were taped and transcribed as soon as possible following the interview. The first author took notes on
the students’ responses in addition to relying on the tapes.
The interviews took place in an empty classroom in the
school. The first author continuously rephrased the students’
responses and asked if she was conveying the meaning that
they intended. All students agreed that the rephrasing was
accurate, indicating that the researcher had accurately interpreted their answers.
Data Analysis
When reviewing the data gathered in answer to the research
questions, the first author noted recurring themes that
emerged. The initial open codes were developed based on
participant responses to the questionnaires, and to notes
from the interviews (Creswell, 2007). Once the interviews
were transcribed, the first author indicated which text segments represented the open codes. After an analysis of all
the transcribed interviews the first author developed analytic codes (Creswell, 2007) pertaining to the research
questions and occurring across most of the participants.
The following three codes were developed into three of the
major themes:
1.
2.
3.
RLS is a desirable tool for getting good grades;
RLS is for school use only, not for beyond school
assignments;
RLS is enjoyable.
For example, Mark’s statement, “I really don’t use other programs because rls gives me all the information that I need”
was coded as “RLS is a desirable tool for getting good
grades.”
Validity
Researcher effects were checked by having two others
(a psychologist who has worked in the field of gifted education and a master teacher of urban gifted children working
5
Swicord et al.
in a context similar to the sample) review the study and
findings. Both readers concurred that the findings were
consistent with their experiences working with similar students in similar situations.
Finally, the first author’s orientation to RLS was important in contributing to the study’s trustworthiness. The
researcher believes that RLS is an effective way to enhance
and enrich learning for gifted students. With that understanding, the researcher reflected on the transcripts and observations to put aside as much bias as possible in understanding
and describing the phenomenon.
Results
Three major themes emerged from the data gathered through
the research questions. One additional finding emerged from
the content of student comments.
Theme 1: RLS is a Useful
Tool for Attaining Good Grades
The first, most dominant theme emerged from students’ perceptions of need and desire to attain high grades, and the use
of RLS as a vehicle to achieve very good grades. These students very much wanted to have tools at their disposal that
made it easy and likely that they would be successful in
school. Cindy thought it made her more organized, which
helped her get better grades. “I can separate my topics within
my project. Instead of one pile of information I can be organized and get better information.” Mark also liked that “it has
research that you want and not what you don’t need.” He
added that RLS was “easier to use than wide-based databases
because they have a whole bunch of things but Renzulli categorizes what you need.”
In addition to the assistance that RLS provided for them in
their projects, students noted that they gained general knowledge as well, which helped them be more successful in
school. Cheryl believed she had gained keyboarding skills
from reading all the projects and that she was “way more
knowledgeable than before RLS. I’ve gained so much knowledge even with the assignments that are given.” Jamil thought
that using RLS had improved his work ethic and helped him
focus academically. “I work harder on schoolwork now and I
have better products.” He ended one interview by stating,
“Renzulli is great!”
“School is about learning new things and that’s what Renzulli
does. We learn about other cultures and traditions and that’s
what school does too so it’s like a bonus for me.” Hayley
confirmed the school connection but admitted the potential
for other benefits with this comment: “it’s still doing work
but it’s more helpful to the student.”
Theme 3: Enjoyment and Fun
The third theme that became clear was that the students
regarded RLS as adding an element of fun to schoolwork.
They all enjoyed doing hands-on activities within the
sites. Each was able to recall a few activities and a few
projects. Cindy remembered doing projects on Amistad
and WWII, and she was able to recall deducing from her
Shakespeare project on whether Shakespeare was actually
the author of his plays. Rahul, whose favorite class is
geography, did a project on Argentina. Dari recalled creating her own tie-dye T-shirt while doing a study of the
1960s and also learning about a country in South America.
Cindy thought online learning “is funner [sic] to learn
because you know what you are looking for, you’re interested and it’s usually good information that will help you
in the future.”
Theme Four: The Independence Paradox
Another finding that was notable, partly so because it
appeared contradictory, was that though these students preferred to try to achieve independently they also made comments about the need to be networked, to have friends in the
right places, and to work together beyond the school experience. They essentially wanted to have a support group they
could depend on, but only when they needed it.
Naomi embraced the independence she gained through
RLS:
I used to be completely dependent on the teacher and if the
teacher didn’t say it, I’m not going to do it. Your wish is my
command. Renzulli gives me more independence because
you use your imagination and knowledge to do what you’re
doing.
But later, she alluded to the potential need for a helping
hand. “I think having a lot of friends is really helpful. They
all have their own different ways of helping you out.”
Theme 2: RLS is Just for School
Discussion
The second notable theme that emerged focused on how students viewed RLS as a school program, not for personal use
at home. It did not appear to have much relevance or extension into their lives beyond school other than homework. As
Alicia put it, “everything in Renzulli is about school. All the
topics you should learn in school are in there.” Dari agreed.
RLS appeared to be regarded as a tool for achieving an end,
the end being to get good grades. The students saw RLS as an
easy and efficient way to help them get good grades, which
was for them evidence of success in school and in life. They
liked using RLS because it did help them complete school
projects with a high level of quality. As with the teacher
6
comments in the J. Cradler et al. (2002) study on the use of
multimedia projects, students in this study reported increased
ability in research and organizational skills.
Students in this study indicated that they were able to
work on individualized interest projects, a positive change
from findings pointing to a lack of differentiation in most
classrooms (Archambault et al., 1993; Moon et al., 1995;
VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005). Students fondly
recalled a diverse number of research topics pursued
through the use of RLS including projects focused on the
geography of Argentina, events in the 1960s, and questions of authorship for the works credited to Shakespeare.
The personalized list of electronic resources provided by
RLS enabled students to pursue in-depth projects on topics of interest in an organized and efficient manner without the teacher needing to have in-depth knowledge of
each of the topics or go searching for quality resources for
each topic.
RLS provides two of the four aspects of online learning
that Anderson (2004) identified as important for gifted students: a large quantity of resources and varied formats of
resources. Students not only appreciated the wide variety
of resources, but also appreciated that the resources were of
high quality, enabling them to complete projects in a more
efficient manner. Students often reflected that the resources
were just what they needed and that the format of RLS
enabled them to organize their findings. However, Anderson
also stated that gifted students appreciate flexibility with
time and place to complete assignments; but students in this
study tended to only work on RLS projects while at the gifted
program site, and not at home.
These gifted students’ involvement with RLS can also be
described in terms of what was not the case. They did not
seem to see it influencing aspects of their lives beyond
school, did not use it very often for fun outside of school
projects or simply to learn about topics unrelated to school
assignments.
The results of this study are limited to the sample used
for the study. The themes of this study are based on the
responses of nine adolescent students in an urban, midsized
New England city in 2009. In addition, these results are
based on the perceptions of students identified for and participating in a program for gifted and talented seventh- and
eighth-grade students. Furthermore, data was gathered over
a short period of time at the end of a school year by one
researcher. Finally, interpretations are limited to the kinds
of data available to the researcher, which were students’
written and oral responses to written and oral questions,
informal observations at the school, and informal discussions with the gifted program teacher and district director
of evaluation. However, most of the information and resulting interpretations of data were fairly straightforward and
consistent with the literature. All these considerations
SAGE Open
should be taken into account when attributing any stated
results to other groups or ages.
Conclusion
Teachers and administrators need to know how and why students work within a program such as RLS if such programs
or their characteristics are to be replicated, refined, and
improved.
This study demonstrated how gifted adolescents perceived one online learning system to be helpful in achieving
good grades and enjoying the learning process at school. The
themes and implications that emanated from this study suggest some recommendations that educators and school
administrators should consider in enhancing their own venues for gifted students, whether at the individual, class,
school, or district levels. For an online learning system to be
used extensively by gifted students, students need to be
encouraged by gifted program teachers and regular classroom teachers to use the program. In addition, some gifted
students need to be encouraged to view the learning process
as a lifelong endeavor.
In this technological age, there are many ways that schools
can employ tools and strategies to deal with the individual
needs that students bring to school. This study examined one
tool, the RLS, which students found to be beneficial. Teachers
can benefit from any tool that assists them in meeting the
broad range of abilities, interests, and performance levels in
today’s classrooms. School administrators have an opportunity to provide teachers with ongoing professional training,
to establish peer support in using new tools, and to encourage
teachers to be creative in their incorporation of new strategies and tools with an emphasis on meeting the needs of
gifted and talented students. Online learning, such as RLS, is
still a rich area for future research. For example, how can
teachers use RLS to individualize the core curriculum for
gifted students in all their classes? Why do adolescent students see a tool like RLS as strictly a “school only” tool,
especially when it is accessible from home and elsewhere? It
is likely that the reader may discern additional potential areas
for future study as well.
Finally, there is great promise in the students themselves.
These students clearly appreciated a good tool that helps
them and is enjoyable. They also wanted to succeed and had
very positive images of themselves and their future successes. Educators and others should be inspired by the
strengths and ambitions of these young people as they enter
into their young adult lives, striving to be the best they can
be, using the resources available to them. Hopefully, the successes described here within the context of the phenomenon
of the RLS are an inspiration to all educators as they continue
to find and create resources that will stimulate, organize, and
challenge young gifted minds.
Swicord et al.
Appendix A
Online Questionnaire
Name————————— Age——— Grade—————
Thank you for taking a few minutes to help me understand how you use the Renzulli Learning System (RLS).
Please give me as much detail as you can, even if you are not
sure what you’re writing is directly related to the question. I
will follow up with you in our interview with ideas or statements that I would like you to help me understand more
thoroughly.
The first section will help me understand how you use
RLS. I have listed some questions to help you think of details,
but feel free to add whatever else you wish. You may skip
any questions you feel do not relate to your situation.
1. How long have you been using RLS?
2. Did you start using RLS at school or at home first?
3. Do you use RLS in both places now? If so, please
share how much time is spent in each place using
RLS.
4. Do you use other online learning programs? If yes,
please name them. If yes, did you use them prior to
RLS, and are you using additional learning systems
now?
5. Were you given instruction in using RLS or did you
teach yourself how to use it?
6. How do you use RLS? For school assignments? For
school based independent study? As part of a gifted
program curriculum? Core curriculum? For enjoyment or personal growth? Other?
7. Please describe how you feel when you are engaged
in an RLS activity. If you use RLS at home and at
school, please describe any differences in how you
feel when you are using RLS in the different settings.
8. Do other students use RLS at school with you? If yes,
at the same times or at different times? Do you share
what you are doing with each other?
The next few questions ask you to think about how RLS
is related to school behaviors.
9. If you use RLS at school, how does using it affect
your feelings about school?
10. Do you believe using RLS at school helps you be
more satisfied with school or less satisfied? Please
explain why or why not.
11. Do you believe that using RLS helps you be a better
student? If yes, in what ways? Possibilities include
being smarter? More knowledgeable? More independent? More computer literate? More capable of being
a successful student now or in the future?
12. Do you believe that using RLS has improved your
grades or marks in school now? Do you believe it
7
will in the future? Is getting higher grades or marks in
school a goal for you?
13. Do you believe that using RLS has made you more
involved in school assignments, extracurricular academic activities, and/or classroom discussions or
less so?
The next set of questions asks you about any social effect
that using RLS might have for you.
14. When you use RLS at school, do you believe that
doing so has increased or decreased your social interactions with other students? Why?
15. When you use RLS at home, do you believe that
doing so has had any effect on your social interactions or relationships at home? How so?
16. What do you believe about your need for or ability to
make friends at school? How does participating in
online learning of any kind impact your social experiences? Has RLS specifically had any effect on your
social life?
17. If you believed that participating in an online learning program was harmful to your social life, what
would you do with that belief?
I’m also interested in what your parents think about your
use of RLS.
18. Do your parents encourage you to use RLS at home?
At school?
19. How much do your parents know about RLS?
20. To your knowledge, what opinion do your parents
have about your use of RLS?
21. Do your parents affect how much or in what way you
use RLS? If so, how?
Finally, I’d like to hear about your teacher or teachers in
regard to using RLS.
22. Has a teacher been instrumental in your use of RLS?
How so?
23. What is your current teacher’s or teachers’ attitude or
opinion, in your estimation, of your use of RLS?
24. If you have a teacher who actively incorporates RLS
in your educational program, how is it used?
25. Has a teacher encouraged you or enabled you to use
RLS outside of school? In what way?
26. Has a teacher discouraged you from using RLS in
any situation? If so, please describe.
27. Do you believe your teacher or teachers think that
using RLS has been helpful in achieving academic
success? Please explain how or how not. Do you
believe your teachers think that RLS has been helpful
in areas other than core academics? Please explain.
8
SAGE Open
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me to
help me understand how you learn and how you like to learn
in regard to this online learning system. I will follow up with
you on some of your ideas when we talk.
Appendix B
8.
The next few questions look at how RLS is related to
school behaviors.
Interview Protocol
9.
For researcher use only: Research questions and related
numbers of survey questions and interview questions
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
How are the selected adolescents using RLS? (questions 1-8)
What are the perceived effects of using RLS on
school behaviors? (questions 9-13)
How do students perceive that using RLS has affected
their social behaviors? (questions 14- 17)
What are students’ perceptions of their parents’
understanding of RLS? (questions 18-21)
What are students’ perceptions of their teachers’
understanding of RLS? (questions 22-27)
The first interview protocol will be loosely set up to follow
the online questionnaire, but many of the specific questions
will derive from the answers given to the questionnaire.
Questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
You told me how long you have been using RLS. Can
you be more specific about how much time per week
or day you use RLS, other systems, or just the Internet
for browsing?
Tell me more about how you got started using RLS.
Has your use increased or decreased over time? Have
you increased efficiency in your usage time?
Please describe the typical setting for using RLS at
home and at school. What time of day is it? What is
going on around you? Are you alone or with people?
How would you compare RLS with other learning
systems you have used or are using? What would you
change or improve about RLS? About others? What
do you particularly like or dislike about RLS? About
online learning in general?
How simple or hard do you find RLS to use? How
much time did it take to become proficient in getting
the best use out of it?
Tell me about any particular studies you have done
through RLS and for what purpose. Have you done
extensive studies or do you prefer to do small, frequent projects in many areas?
What motivates you to participate in RLS? Do you
look forward to it or is it just another task to do?
What was the most pleasant memory you have while
using RLS?
Do you like using RLS by yourself? Do you like
learning by yourself or in a group when you are doing
online activities?
11.
12.
13.
Tell me more about how you feel about school when
you are using and when you are not using RLS.
Tell me more about how satisfied you are with school
as far as RLS is concerned.
Tell me more about the growth or skills you think you
have gained by using RLS.
What motivates you to be successful academically?
Tell me more about your academic goals and how
you think online learning might impact your goal
achievement.
How do you think RLS is related to school in the traditional sense of what school is?
The next set of questions asks you about any social effect
that using RLS might have for you.
14. Tell me more about your social interactions at school
and the effects that using online learning might have
on them for you.
15. Tell me more about your social life with classmates
after the school day. Do you get your friends involved
with you on projects through RLS?
16. Tell me more about your personal social goals. How
related are these goals to your academic or intellectual goals?
17. Tell me more about how online learning might harm
social relationships for you or for others.
I’m also interested in what your parents think about your
use of RLS.
18. Do your parents actively do things to get you to use
RLS or not to be online?
19. Have your parents participated in the parent component of RLS?
20. What else would your parents say about RLS?
21. Have your parents engaged in an RLS activity or
project with you?
Finally, I’d like to hear about your teacher or teachers in
regard to using RLS.
22. Tell me more about what role this teacher plays in the
school and in your educational program.
23. What else might your teacher say about RLS?
24. Tell me more about how RLS is used for you, where,
when, how often, how successfully?
Swicord et al.
25. Would you want a teacher to be more involved in
helping you work on online projects outside of
school? Why or why not?
26. Have you had any negative experiences with a teacher
due to RLS activity?
27. Tell me more about the impression you have regarding your teacher’s opinion, use, or attitudes about
RLS.
Thank you very much for sharing more of your ideas
with me.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
References
Anderson, T. (2004). Towards a theory of online learning. In
T. Anderson, & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of
online learning (pp. 33-60). Edmonton, AB, Canada: Athabasca
University Press.
Archambault, F. X., Jr., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark,
B., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom
practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey
of classroom teachers (No. RM93102). Storrs, CT: National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Azzam, A. M. (2006). Digital opportunity. Educational Leadership,
63(4), 89-92.
Bain, A., & Ross, K. G. (2000). School reengineering and SAT-I performance: A case study. International Journal of Educational
Reform, 9(2), 148-154.
Borland, J. H. (1978). Teacher identification of the gifted: A new
look. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2, 22-32.
Borland, J. H. (2003). The death of giftedness: Gifted education
without gifted children. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking
gifted education (pp. 105-124). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially
gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 38, 164-171.doi:10.1177/001698629403800402
CEO Forum on Education & Technology. (2000). The power of
digital learning. The CEO Forum school technology and readiness report. Washington, DC: Author.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2002). GT inclusion. Retrieved
from http://ericec.org/faq/gt-inclu.html
Cradler, J., McNabb, M., Freeman, M., & Burchett, R. (2002).
How does technology influence student learning? Learning &
Leading With Technology, 29(8), 46-56.
Cradler, R., & Cradler, J. (1999). Just in time: Technology innovation challenge grant year 2 evaluation report for Blackfoot
School District No. 55. San Mateo, CA: Educational Support
Systems.
9
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Davis, G. A. (2006). Gifted children, gifted education. Scottsdale,
AZ: Great Potential Press.
Delcourt, M. A. B. (1994). Characteristics of high-level creative
productivity. In R. F.Subotnik & K. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond
Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and
talent (pp. 401-436). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Field, G. B. (2009). The effects of the use of Renzulli Learning
on student achievement in reading comprehension, reading
fluency, social studies, and science. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning, 4(1), 29-39. doi:10.3991/
ijet.v4i1.629
Ford, D. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students
in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and
retention. Journal of Special Education, 32, 4-14.
Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Finley, V. S., Frank,
E., García, J. H., & Martin, D. (1995). Educators’ perceptions of barriers to the identification of gifted children from
economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient
backgrounds (No. RM95216). Storrs, CT: National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Galton, F. (1962). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and
consequences. London, England: Macmillan.
Hébert, T. P. (1993). Reflections at graduation: The long-term
impact of elementary school experiences in creative productivity. Roeper Review, 16, 22-28. doi:10.1080/0278319930
9553529
Hootstein, E. (1998). Differentiation of instructional methodologies
in subject-based curricula at the secondary level. Richmond,
VA: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium.
Horowitz, F. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Matthews, D. J. (Eds.). (2009).
The development of giftedness and talent across the life span.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hultgren, H. M., & Seeley, K. R. (1982). Training teachers of
the gifted: A research monograph on teacher competencies.
Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Karnes, F. A., & Bean, S. M. (Eds.). (2001). Methods and materials
for teaching the gifted. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Kearney, K. (1996). Highly gifted children in full inclusion classrooms. Highly Gifted Children. Retrieved from http://www.
hollingworth.org/fullincl.html
Knapp, M. S. (2012). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational
Research, 67, 227-266.
Lenhart, A., Hitlin, P., & Madden, M. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and
mobile nation. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American
Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/
Reports/2005/Teens-and-Technology.aspx
Leu, D. J., Jr., Leu, D. D., & Coiro, J. (2004). Teaching with the
Internet: New literacies for new times (4th ed.). Norwood, MA:
Christopher-Gordon.
Levande, D. (1999). Gifted readers and reading instruction. CAG
Communicator. Retrieved from http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/
levande.htm
Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
10
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design
and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley
Imprint.
Moon, T., Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1995). Academic
diversity in the middle school: Results of a national survey of
middle school administrators and teachers (No. RM95124).
Charlottesville, VA: National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented.
National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.). No Child Left
Behind background information. Retrieved from http://www.
nagc.org/index.aspx?id=999
Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (Eds.). (2008). Critical issues and
practices in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Project Tomorrow. (2006). Our voices, our future: Student and
teacher views on science, technology & education. Irvine, CA:
Project Tomorrow. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/
speakup/pdfs/SpeakUpReport_05.pdf
Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modifying the regular classroom for high ability students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative
Learning Press.
Reis, S. M., & Westberg, K. L. (1994). The impact of staff development on teachers’ ability to modify curriculum for gifted
and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 127-135.
doi:10.1177/001698629403800306
Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hébert, T.
P., Plucker, J., & Smist, J. M. (1993). Why not let high ability
students start school in January? The curriculum compacting
study (No. RM93106). Storrs, CT: National Research Center
on the Gifted and Talented.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for
developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented.
Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184, 261.
Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., McMillen, K. S., Eckert, R. D., &
Little, C. A. (Eds.). (2009). Systems and models for developing
programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT:
Creative Learning Press.
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.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2007). A technology based program
that matches enrichment resources with student strengths.
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning,
2(3), 1-8.
Renzulli, J. S., Reis, S. M., & Smith, L. (1981). The revolving door
identification model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning
Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Smith, L. (1979). A guidebook for developing
individualized educational programs for gifted and talented
students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation
M: Media in the lives of 8-18 year-olds. Retrieved from http://
kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/generationm-media-in-the-lives-of-8-18-year-olds-report.pdf
Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument
against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9-27.
SAGE Open
Sak, U. (2004). A synthesis of research on psychological types of
gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,
15(2), 70-79.
Sheffield, C. C. (2007). Technology and the gifted adolescent:
Higher order thinking, 21st century literacy, and the digital
native. Meridian: A Middle School Technologies Journal,
10(2), 1-5.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1993). Thinking
styles and the gifted. Roeper Review, 16, 122-130.
doi:10.1080/02783199309553555
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Terman, L. M. (1926). Mental and physical traits of a thousand
gifted children (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1994). Gifted learners too: A possible dream?
Educational Leadership, 52(4), 68-69.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1997). The dos and don’ts of instruction: What
it means to teach gifted learners well. Instructional Leader,
10(3), 1-3, 12.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding
to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in
gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 342-358.
doi:10.1177/0016986207306323
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom.
Theory Into Practice, 44, 211-217.
Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Jr., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin,
T. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms (No. RM93104). Storrs, CT: National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Author Biographies
Barbara Swicord is executive director of the National Society for
the Gifted and Talented and president of the Summer Institute for
the Gifted, headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. She earned her
doctorate in educational administration from Rutgers University
and her master’ s degree in gifted education from the University of
Georgia.
Jaclyn M. Chancey received her doctorate in educational psychology with concentrations in gifted education and counseling psychology from the University of Connecticut. Her research interests
include gifted students in college, honors programs, the social and
emotional needs of gifted students, and technology in teaching.
Micah N. Bruce-Davis is a doctoral candidate in educational psychology at the University of Connecticut, with a concentration in gifted
education and talent development. Her research interests include specialized schools, motivation, and the affective needs of gifted.
GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH ARTICLE CRITIQUE-Qual
Critiques written on articles that are not research articles will receive no points (0). If you are not
sure if your article is a quantitative research article, check with your instructor.
• Students must provide copies of the articles (If a copy of the article is not provided, no
grade will be given, resulting in no points (0) for that critique.
• Critiques should be double-spaced, with 12 point font, and 1 inch margins on all sides.
Do NOT use a cover sheet.
• Organize your paper into paragraphs using the subsections and headings listed below.
• Total length of the critique should not be longer than 4 pages.
SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS and SCORING CRITERIA
(1) Identify the research article using the APA reference format (2 points)
(2) Summarize BRIEFLY (no more than ¾ page) (10 points)
• Research problem
• Research design
• Sample
• Instruments
• Method of analysis
• Conclusion
Critique:
(3) Introduction and Literature Review (4 points)
Use the criteria to evaluate the article. Prepare a written critique according to the criteria set. You
do not need to answer each specific question. Summarize and cover the relevant points.
Criteria
Is the general purpose of the study clear?
Is the study significant? Will it make a practical or theoretical contribution?
Is the introduction well organized and clear?
Is the review comprehensive?
Is the review up to date?
Is there an emphasis on primary sources?
Is there a critical review or summary of findings?
Is the review well organized? Does it contain extraneous information?
Does the review clearly relate previous studies to the current research problem?
Does the review help establish the importance of the research?
(4) Research Problem or Question (2 points)
Is the problem or question clear and concise?
Does the problem communicate the type of research and population?
Is the context clearly delineated?
Methodology: Sampling (4 points)
Is the population described adequately?
Is the sample clearly described?
Is the method of selecting the sample clear?
Could the method of selection affect the results?
Are subjects likely to be motivated to give biased responses?
Is the sample known to the researcher? Could this result in researcher bias?
Methodology: Data Collection(5 points)
For each method of collection used in the study consider the following:
Is there a clear description of the instrument and how it was used?
Is there a clear description if how the instrument was administered?
Is it likely that subjects would fake their responses?
Are interviewers and observers trained?
Design/Theoretical Framework (8 points)
What kind of approach is being used?
Is there a stated theoretical viewpoint?
Are there any clear weaknesses in the design of the study?
Are the procedures for collecting information described fully?
Is it likely that the researcher is biased?
Is there evidence of trustworthiness built into the design?
Results (5 points)
Are the findings presented clearly?
Is there sufficient descriptive information to interpret the results?
Are the results presented in relation to the research question?
Is there clear interpretation of the results?
Discussion (7 points)
Is the discussion based on the research problem and results, or is there a tendency to discuss
unrelated material or ideas?
Is there an adequate interpretation of the findings?
Is the interpretation separate from the results?
Are the results discussed in relation to previous studies?
Are limitations included in the discussion?
Are the conclusions clearly stated and based on the results and discussion?
Are the conclusions reasonable? Did they go beyond the interpretation of the findings?
The last 3 points are from the overall writing quality (grammar, spelling, etc.).
Purchase answer to see full
attachment