Conceptualizing Concurrent Enrollment: Why High-Achieving Students Go For It

Gifted Child Quarterly

Volumn 59, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 249-264

  Dare, Lynn ^a   Nowicki, Elizabeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

acceleration; concurrent enrollment; dual enrollment; self determination theory; Trochim s concept mapping

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941194539     PISSN: 00169862     EISSN: 19349041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0016986215597749     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. S.K.BainS.L.BlissS.M.ChoateK.S.Brown (2007). Serving children who are gifted: Perceptions of undergraduates planning to become teachers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 450-478.
2. M.CantinottiR.LadouceurC.Jacques (2009). Lay and scientific conceptualizations of impaired control at electronic gambling machines. Addiction Research & Theory, 17, 650-667. doi:10.3109/16066350802290623
3. V.J.CaracelliL.J.C.Riggin (1994). Mixed-method evaluation: Developing quality criteria through concept mapping. Evaluation Practice, 15, 139-152.
4. P.R.Clinkenbeard (2012). Motivation and gifted students: Implications of theory and research. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 622-630.
5. N.ColangeloS.G.AssoulineM.U.M.Gross (2004a). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students, Volume I. Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
6. N.ColangeloS.G.AssoulineM.U.M.Gross (2004b). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students, Volume II. Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
7. N.ColangeloS.G.AssoulineM.A.MarronJ.A.CastellanoP.R.ClinkenbeardK.RogersD.. Smith (2010). Guidelines for developing an academic acceleration policy. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 180-203.
8. Concept Systems Inc. (2014). The Concept System® Global [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.conceptsystems.com
9. T.M.CousineauD.L.FrankoM.CiccazzoM.GoldsteinE.Rosenthal (2006). Web-based nutrition education for college students: Is it feasible?Evaluation and Program Planning, 29, 23-33. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2005.04.018
10. D.DaughtryM.A.Kunkel (1993). Experience of depression in college students: A concept map. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 316-323. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.40.3.316
11. E.L.DeciR.M.Ryan (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
12. M.B.Dodge (2012). Dual enrollment in a rural environment: A descriptive quantitative study. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36, 220-228. doi:10.1080/10668920902813451
13. A.EdmundsG.Edmunds (2008). Special education in Canada (1st ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
14. R.D.EverallD.TruscottB.L.Paulson (1999). Studying participants’ experiences using concept mapping. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45, 320-323.
15. J.Feldhusen (1982). Meeting the needs of gifted students through differentiated programming. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 37-41. doi:10.1177/001698628202600113
16. S.GallagherS.R.Smith (2013). Acceleration for talent development: Parents’ and teachers’ attitudes towards supporting the social and emotional needs of gifted children. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 1, 97-112.
17. A.C.GarnM.S.MatthewsJ.L.Jolly (2010). Parental influences on the academic motivation of gifted students: A self-determination theory perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 263-272. doi:10.1177/0016986210377657
18. R.K.Goodyear (2002). A concept map of male partners in teenage pregnancy: Implications for school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 5, 186-193.
19. A.W.GottfriedC.R.CookA.E.GottfriedP.E.Morris (2005). Educational characteristics of adolescents with gifted academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal investigation from school entry through early adulthood. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 172-186. doi:10.1177/001698620504900206
20. K.M.JacksonW.M.K.Trochim (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 307-336. doi:10.1177/109442802237114
21. M.KaneW.M.K.Trochim (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. New York, NY: Sage.
22. L.Kanevsky (2011). A survey of educational acceleration practices in Canada. Canadian Journal of Education, 34, 153-180.
23. F.A.KarnesJ.C.Chauvin (1982). A survey of early admission policies for younger than average students: Implications for gifted youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 68-73. doi:10.1177/00169862820260
24. J.A.KulikC.C.Kulik (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54, 409-425.
25. M.A.KunkelB.ChapaG.PattersonD.Walling (1995). The experience of giftedness: A concept map. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 126-134. doi:10.1177/001698629503900302
26. D.Lubinski (2004). Long term effects of educational acceleration. In N.ColangeloS.G.AssoulineM.U.M.Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 23-38). Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank International Centre for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
27. S.MarkenL.GrayL.Lewis (2013). Dual enrollment programs and courses for high school students at postsecondary institutions: 2010-11 (NCES 2013-002). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
28. D.B.McCoachD.Siegle (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted?Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 246-255. doi:10.1177/0016986207302719
29. National Association for Gifted Children. (2004). Acceleration [Position paper]. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org
30. National Association for Gifted Children. (2009). State of the states in gifted education, national policy and practice data 2008-2009. Washington, DC: Author.
31. National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). NAGC Pre-K–Grade 12 gifted programming standards. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/ProgrammingStandards.aspx
32. M.Neihart (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 330-341. doi:10.1177/0016986207306319
33. C.P.NiemiecM.F.LynchM.VansteenkisteJ.BernsteinE.L.DeciR.M.Ryan (2006). The antecedents and consequences of autonomous self-regulation for college: A self-determination theory perspective on socialization. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 761-775.
34. E.A.NowickiJ.BrownM.Stepien (2014a). 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
35. E.A.NowickiJ.BrownM.Stepien (2014b). Children’s thoughts on the social exclusion of peers with intellectual or learning disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 58, 346-357. doi:10.1111/jir.12019
36. F.R.Olenchak (1999). Affective development of gifted students with nontraditional talents. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 21, 293-297. doi:10.1080/02783199909553978
37. B.C.PatrickE.A.SkinnerJ.P.Connell (1993). What motivates children’s behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 781-791.
38. C.J.PetrucciK.M.Quinlan (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, 25-42. doi:10.1300/J079v34n02_03
39. G.H.PoelzerJ.F.Feldhusen (1997). The international baccalaureate: A program for gifted secondary students. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 19, 168-171. doi:10.1080/02783199709553820
40. D.L.PooleT.S.Davis (2006). Concept mapping to measure outcomes in study abroad programs. Social Work Education, 25, 61-77. doi:10.1080/02615470500477920
41. S.L.Pressey (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisal of basic problems. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
42. C.C.PrestonA.M.Colman (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1-15.
43. K.E.RamboD.B.McCoach (2012). Teacher attitudes toward subject-specific acceleration: Instrument development and validation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 129-152. doi:10.1177/0162353212440591
44. K.B.Rogers (2002). Re-forming gifted education. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
45. K.B.Rogers (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382-396. doi:10.1177/0016986207306324
46. S.R.RosasM.Kane (2012). Quality and rigor of the comet mapping methodology: A pooled study analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35, 236-245.
47. G.RothA.AssorC.P.NiemiecR.M.RyanE.L.Deci (2009). The emotional and academic consequences of parental conditional regard: Comparing conditional positive regard, conditional negative regard, and autonomy support as parenting practices. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1119-1142.
48. R.M.RyanE.L.Deci (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
49. R.M.RyanJ.StillerJ.H.Lynch (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226-249.
50. D.SiegleH.E.WilsonC.A.Little (2013). A sample of gifted and talented educators’ attitudes about academic acceleration. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(1), 27-51. doi:10.1177/1932202X12472491
51. J.F.SmutnyS.Y.WalkerE.A.Meckstroth (2007). Acceleration for gifted learners, K-5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
52. W.T.SouthernE.D.Jones (2004). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In N.ColangeloS.G.AssoulineM.U.M.Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 5-12). Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank International Centre for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
53. W.T.SouthernE.D.JonesE.D.Fiscus (1989). Practitioner objections to the academic acceleration of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 29-35.
54. S.Steenbergen-HuS.M.Moon (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 39-53. doi:10.1177/0016986210383155
55. R.F.SubotnikP.Olszewski-KubiliusF.C.Worrell (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3-54. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056
56. J.Swanson (2010). Dual enrollment: The missing link to college readiness. Principal Leadership, 10, 42-46.
57. W.Trochim (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1-16.
58. R.J.VallerandF.GagnéC.SenécalL.G.Pelletier (1994). A comparison of the school intrinsic motivation and perceived competence of gifted and regular students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 172-175.
59. M.A.Winzer (2002). Children with exceptionalities in Canadian classrooms (6th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Prentice Hall.
60. J.S.WolfJ.Geiger (1986). Concurrent enrollment: A program to foster educational excellence. High School Journal, 69, 218-221.
61. S.WoodT.A.A.PortmanD.L.CigrandN.Colangelo (2010). School counselors’ perceptions and experience with acceleration as a program option for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 168-178. doi:10.1177/0016986210367940