Abstract
High-ability students have special education needs that are often overlooked or misunderstood (Blaas in Aust J Guid Couns 24(2):243–255, 2014) which may result in talent loss (Saha and Sikora in Int J Contemp Sociol Discuss J Contemp Ideas Res 48(1):9–34, 2011). Educational acceleration can help avoid these circumstances and support high-ability students to reach their full potential by providing a better match between students’ abilities and the pace of their education (Assouline et al. in A nation empowered: evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, Iowa City, 2015). Concurrent or dual enrollment is a type of acceleration in which students are enrolled in two levels of school simultaneously, for example, secondary students might attend college or university. In this comparative research, we examined how educators and students categorized students’ motivations to choose concurrent enrollment through a group concept mapping process. Participants structured a set of 85 reasons for concurrent enrollment by sorting the data into meaningful groups. We applied multi-dimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis to the grouped data to create a cluster map of the educators’ categorizations. Key concepts in the educators’ map included (a) Planning Ahead, (b) Love Learning, (c) Challenge, (d) Smart kids! and (e) Meet Intellectual Peers. Next, we quantitatively and qualitatively compared the educators’ concept map to a map created by students in an earlier study. Using Procrustes analysis, we found overall similarities in the placement of individual statements on the two maps. However, our analysis of the cluster solutions revealed some differences between educators’ and students’ maps. Of particular interest, the students’ map had more categories, suggesting that students categorized their motivations more finely than educators did. Educational practice implications are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa.
Blaas, S. (2014). The relationship between social-emotional difficulties and underachievement of gifted students. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24(2), 243–255. doi:10.1017/jgc.2014.1.
Cantinotti, M., Ladouceur, R., & Jacques, C. (2009). Lay and scientific conceptualizations of impaired control at electronic gambling machines. Addiction Research & Theory, 17(6), 650–667. doi:10.3109/16066350802290623.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa.
Dare, L., & Nowicki, E. A. (2015). Conceptualizing concurrent enrollment: Why high-achieving students go for it. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 249–264. doi:10.1177/0016986215597749.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1982). Meeting the needs of gifted students through differentiated programming. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(1), 3741.
Gallagher, S., Smith, S. R., & Merrotsy, P. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of the socioemotional development of intellectually gifted primary aged students and their attitudes towards ability grouping and acceleration. Gifted and Talented International, 26(1), 11–24.
Jackson, K. M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 307–336. doi:10.1177/109442802237114.
Kane, M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential differentiation: What types of differentiation do students want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 279–299. doi:10.1177/0016986211422098.
Kanevsky, L., & Clelland, D. (2013). Accelerating gifted students in canada: Policies and possibilities. Canadian Journal of Education, 3(2013), 229–271.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2004). Acceleration [position paper]. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org.
Nowicki, E. A. (2012). Intergroup evaluations and norms about learning ability. Social Development, 21(1), 130–149. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00614.x.
Nowicki, E. A., Brown, J., & Stepien, M. (2014). Children’s structured conceptualizations of their beliefs on the causes of learning difficulties. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8, 69–82. doi:10.1177/1558689813490834.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2014). Equity and inclusive education in ontario schools: Guidelines for policy development and implementation. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/inclusiveguide.pdf.
Peres-Neto, P., & Jackson, D. A. (2001). How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a procrustean superimposition approach over the mantel test. Oecologia, 129, 169–178. doi:10.1007/s004420100720.
Petrucci, C. J., & Quinlan, K. M. (2007). Bridging the research-practice gap: Concept mapping as a mixed-methods strategy in practice-based research and evaluation. Journal of Social Service Research, 34(2), 25–42. doi:10.1300/J079v34n02.
Rambo, K. E., & McCoach, D. B. (2012). Teacher attitudes toward subject-specific acceleration: Instrument development and validation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(2), 129–152. doi:10.1177/0162353212440591.
Renaud-Dubé, A., Guay, F., Talbot, D., Taylor, G., & Koestner, R. (2015). The relations between implicit intelligence beliefs, autonomous academic motivation, and school persistence intentions: A mediation model. Social Psychology of Education, 18(2), 255–272. doi:10.1007/s11218-014-9288-0.
Rush, S. C., & Wheeler, J. (2011). Ascertaining disabling perceptions using perceptual mapping: Applications to teachers’ perceptions of adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Disability and Society, 26(6), 743–756. doi:10.1080/09687599.2011.602866.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
Saha, L., & Sikora, J. (2011). Inequality and talent loss: recent evidence from australia. An International Journal of Contemporary Sociology A Discussion Journal of Contemporary Ideas and Research, 48(1), 9–34.
Sikora, J., & Saha, L. (2011). The concept of “talent loss” in educational theory and research. Educational Practice and Theory, 33(2), 5–22.
Sjodahl Hammarlund, C. S., Nilsson, M. H., Idvall, M., Rosas, S. R., & Hagell, P. (2014). Conceptualizing and prioritizing clinical trial outcomes from the perspectives of people with parkinson’s disease versus health care professionals: A concept mapping study. Quality of Life Research, 23(6), 1687–1700. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0614-3.
Specht, J. A. (2013). Mental health in schools: Lessons learned from exclusion. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 28(1), 43–55. doi:10.1177/0829573512468857.
Stanley, J. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t already know. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 6, 216–222.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Moon, S. M. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 39–53. doi:10.1177/0016986210383155.
Taylor, J. L. (2015). Accelerating pathways to college: The (in) equitable effects of community college dual credit. Community College Review, 43(4), 355–379. doi:10.1177/0091552115594880.
Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1–16.
Winzer, M. A. (2002). Children with exceptionalities in canadian classrooms (6th ed.). Toronto, ON: Prentice Hall.
Wolf, J. S., & Geiger, J. (1986). Concurrent enrollment: A program to foster educational excellence. The High School Journal, 69(3), 218–221.
Wood, S., Portman, T. A. A., Cigrand, D. L., & Colangelo, N. (2010). School counselors’ perceptions and experience with acceleration as a program option for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(3), 168–178. doi:10.1177/0016986210367940.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Donald A Jackson for his kind assistance with Procrustes analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dare, A., Dare, L. & Nowicki, E. Concurrent enrollment: comparing how educators and students categorize students’ motivations. Soc Psychol Educ 20, 195–213 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-016-9364-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-016-9364-8