The schoolwide enrichment model for reading (SEM-R) framework

Abstract

Educators and researchers have suggested that the Schoolwide Enrichment Model for Reading (SEM-R) is an appropriate approach that helps in meeting their needs. SEM-R was developed from the general SEM model. It was designed to emphasize reading enjoyment and reading skill development (Reis et al., 2008). The SEM-R consists of three phases: (a) Phase I: Exposure, (b) Phase II: Supported Independent Reading, and (c) Phase III: Choice Components. Separate studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of the SEM-R on increasing gifted students’ reading fluency, achievement, and attitude toward reading. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to provide a brief literature review exploring the researched effects of the SEM-R on gifted students’ reading fluency, achievement, and attitude toward reading.

Keywords

• Enrichment- Gifted- Reading
• Enrichment
• Reading

References

1. Anderson, G., Higgins, D., & Wurster, S. (1985). Free reading books selected by high, average and low achievers. The Reading Teacher, 39(3), 326-330.
2. Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (Research monograph 93102). The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. From http://www.gifted. uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rm93102/rm93102.pdf
3. Catron, R. M., & Wingenbach, N. (1986). Developing the gifted reader. Theory into Practice, 25(2), 134-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848609543213
4. Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B.O. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and promising practices. A National Study Conducted by the Sid W. Richard Foundation. University of Texas Press.
5. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
6. Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
7. Farmer, D. (Ed.) (1993) Gifted Children need help? A guide for parents and teachers. Strathfield: NSW: NSW Association for Gifted and Talented Children.
8. Jackson, N. E. (1993). Reading with young children (RBDM 9302). The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut

9. Karafelis, P. (1986). The effects of the tri-art drama curriculum on the reading comprehension of students with varying levels of cognitive ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
10. Knight, B. A. & Becker, T. (2000). The challenge of meeting the needs of gifted students in the regular classroom: The student viewpoint. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 9(1), 11-17. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2011.11673596
11. Levande, D. (1993). Identifying and serving the gifted reader. Reading Improvement, 30(3), 147-150.
12. Little, C. A. (2012). Curriculum as motivation for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 695-705. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21621
13. Little, C. A., & Hines, A. H. (2006). Time to read: Advancing reading achievement after school. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(1), 8-33. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2006-350
14. Little, C. A., McCoach, D. B., & Reis, S. M. (2014). Effects of differentiated reading instruction on student achievement in middle school. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(4), 384-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14549250
15. Mangieri, J. N., & Madigan, F. (1984). Reading for gifted students: What schools are doing. Roeper Review, 7(2), 68-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783198409552851
16. Mason, J., & Au, K. (1990). Reading instruction for today. HarperCollins
17. McKenna, M. C., & Kear, D. J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for teachers. Reading Teacher, 43(9), 626–639. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.43.8.3
18. Moore, S., & Lemons, R. (1982). Measuring reading attitudes: Three dimensions. Reading World, 22(1), 48-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388078209557678
19. Nathan, R. G., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). The causes and consequences of differences in reading fluency. Theory into Practice, 30(3), 176-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849109543498
20. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Report of the subgroups. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health.
21. Olszewski‐Kubilius, P., & Lee, S‐Y. (2004). The role of participation in in‐school and outside‐of‐school activities in the talent development of gifted students. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(3), 107‐123. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2004-454
22. Reis, S., McCoach, D., Little, C., Muller, L. & Kaniskan, R. (2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 462–501. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210382891
23. Reis, S., Little, C., Fogarty, E., Housand, A., Housand, B., Sweeny, S., Eckert, R. & Muller, L. (2010). Case studies of successful Schoolwide Enrichment Model Reading (SEM-R) classroom implementation. The National Research Center on The Gifted and Talented
24. Reis, S. M., & Boeve, H. (2009). How academically gifted elementary urban students respond to challenge in an enriched, differentiated reading program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 203-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320903300204
25. Reis, S. M. & Housand, A. M. (2009). The impact of gifted education pedagogy and enriched reading practices on reading achievement for urban students in bilingual and English-speaking classes. Journal of Urban Education, 6(1), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210382891
26. Reis, S. M., Eckert, R. D., McCoach, D. B., Jacobs, J. J., & Coyne, M. (2008). Using enrichment reading practices to increase reading fluency, comprehension, and attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 101, 299-314. https://doi.org/10.3200/ JOER.101.5.299-315
27. Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Coyne, M., Schreiber, F. J., Eckert, R. D., & Gubbins, E. J. (2007). Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading fluency, comprehension, and attitude toward reading: An evidence based study. Elementary School Journal, 108(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1086/522383
28. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model. Gifted Education International, 18(1), 15-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940301800104
29. Reis, S. M., Gentry, M., & Park, S. (1995). Extending the pedagogy of gifted education to all students (Research Monograph 95118). The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
30. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Creative learning Press
31. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Creative Learning Press.
32. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: New directions for developing high-end learning. In N. Colangenlo & G. A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.) (pp. 136-154). Allyn & Bacon.
33. Schenkel, L. A. (2002). Hands on and feet first: Linking high‐ability students to marine scientists. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13(4), 173‐191. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2002-380
34. Shaunessy-Dedrick, E., Evans, L., Ferron, J. & Lindo, M. (2015). Effects of differentiated reading on elementary students’ reading comprehension and attitudes toward reading. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(2), 91 –107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214568718
35. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. ASCD.
36. Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. ASCD.
37. Tomlinson, C. A. (2012). Administrative decision-making for changing times. In R. F. Subotnik, A. Robinson, C. M. Callahan, & E. J. Gubbins (Eds.), Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education (pp. 245 – 256). National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
38. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2012). Teacher behavior as a tool to understanding the motivation of gifted learners. In R. F. Subotnik, A. Robinson, C. M. Callahan, & E. J. Gubbins (Eds.), Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education (pp. 257 – 266). National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
39. Westburg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Slavin, T. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms (Research monograph 93104). The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
40. Witty, P. (1985). Rationale for fostering creative reading in the gifted and creative. In M. Labuda (Ed.), Creative learning for the gifted learners (pp. 8- 24, 2nd ed.). International Reading Association.