VAGUE LANGUAGE: TRIVIALISING THE SEMANTICS



CONCEPTIONS OF ENRICHMENT

Wai Yi Feng

University of Cambridge Faculty of Education

The term ‘enrichment’ is often used commonsensically, its meaning taken as shared. However, existing descriptions and definitions often lack clarity; underlying assumptions are rarely made explicit. Indeed, closer examination shows that there is little consensus on the meaning of ‘enrichment’. This paper explores conceptions of enrichment within the literature, using mathematics enrichment as a specific example. In particular, we consider the range of views as to what is enrichment, why it should happen, who should be enriched, whether all learning can be enriched, and where and when should enrichment take place.

Background

Conceptions of ‘mathematics enrichment’ have been shaped by many of the wider debates in education — e.g. debates about the merits of special education versus inclusive education and the forms that these might take, debates about the value of mathematics in its own right and in terms of its utility in modern society, and debates about who should have access to what kinds of mathematics and why — and reflect the changes in thinking that have taken place. Conflicting views in these debates have given rise to a variety of discourses in the enrichment literature. In turn, this has led to the inconsistent and incoherent use of the term ‘enrichment’ over time and between scholars.

What is Enrichment?

Defining Enrichment

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘enrichment’ as ‘the action or process of enriching, in various senses’ and ‘the condition of being enriched’, where to ‘enrich’ means to ‘make “richer” in quality’ and to ‘enhance excellences’. The Collins English Dictionary defines enrichment similarly, associating it with that which adorns, fertilises, or endows with fine or desirable qualities. However, such definitions of enrichment are inadequate when applied to the educational context because they fail to make precise:

1. what could be classified as ‘rich’ learning experiences or ‘rich’ learning environments, i.e. what we might refer to as educational ‘excellences’;

2. how rich learning experiences could be brought about, how rich learning environments could be established, and how already-established educational excellences could be ‘enhanced’, i.e. the relationship between rich learning experiences, rich learning environments, and the practices of teaching and learning;

3. how educational ‘enhancements’ could be measured, or otherwise assessed, i.e. how we might know that ‘enhancements’ have been made and how we might determine the nature and extent of these ‘enhancements’;

4. the purpose of such ‘enhancements’.

Attempts to define enrichment within educational settings have tried to tackle some of these problems, though not always with success.

Considered simply, enrichment might be defined as any experience that replaces, supplements, or extends instruction beyond that normally offered by the school (Correll, 1978, as cited in Clendening & Davies, 1980). A number of variations of this basic definition have been offered, including some which have sought to clarify its meaning. For example, to Stanley (1979), enrichment is ‘any educational procedure beyond the usual ones for the subject or grade or age [of the student] that does not accelerate or retard the student’s placement in the subject or grade.’ Eyre and Marjoram (1990) defined enrichment as ‘any type of activity or learning which is outside the core of learning which most children undertake’, and described the goal of enrichment as being ‘about enhancing the quality of life in the classroom and heightening sensitivity.’ Although more explicitly educational, such definitions tell us very little about enrichment per se. Since all such definitions suffer from references to ‘normal’ practices which in fact vary between schools, classes and pupils, enrichment too becomes a relative concept.

Other attempts to clarify the (possible) meanings of enrichment by way of definitions have been equally problematic. For example, Clendening and Davies (1983, authors’ emphasis) defined ‘enrichment of content’ to be:

any learning experience that replaces, supplements, or extends instruction beyond the restrictive bonds and boundaries of course content, textbook, and classroom and that includes depth of understanding, breadth of understanding, and relevance to the student and to the world in which he or she lives.

In this definition, Clendening and Davies have tried to elucidate some of the ‘essential qualities’ of enrichment activities. Their emphases on depth, breadth and relevance as necessary parts of enriched teaching and learning have drawn consensus from many scholars (e.g. Piggott, 2004b; Eyre & Marjoram, 1990; Worcester, 1979; Martinson, 1968). However, this definition still runs the risk of blurring the boundaries between ‘enrichment’ and the related concept of ‘extension’ as distinguished by some authors (e.g. Eyre & Marjoram, 1990) by using one term to define another. Further, just like any other learning experience or form of instruction, enrichment may be undermined by the very same ‘restrictive bonds and boundaries of course content, textbook and classroom’ it is meant to replace, supplement, or extend. This circular argument risks placing enrichment in an unattainable position.

In sum, beneath the idealistic, and often impressive, language used to describe and define enrichment, an ‘aura of vagueness and confusion seems to surround the term’ (Barbe, 1960). The essence of ‘what makes “enrichment” enrichment’ is often not made clear; the form that enrichment might take and the nature of its content are often not specified. As a result, some scholars (e.g. Keating, 1979) view enrichment as merely an administrative label. Gold (1979) went even further in his criticism. Concluding that enrichment conveys no meaning, he branded it a term that ‘educators hide behind when they don’t want anyone to know they are not doing anything’.

Enrichment, Acceleration, and Gifted Education

Our conceptions of enrichment have also been influenced by thinking about gifted education. In this context, enrichment and acceleration have often been juxtaposed, sometimes to highlight their complementary nature (e.g. Fox, 1979), but more often, by way of contrast (e.g. Clendening & Davies, 1980; Terman & Oden, 1979; Witty, 1960). Without diverting to discuss the complex literature on the relative merits of enrichment versus acceleration in detail, we note briefly that these (implicit and explicit) comparisons have shaped our conceptions of enrichment, and further, that they have done so variously over time depending on the swing of the debate. Put another way, ‘enrichment’ has acted as a convenient marker for efforts to ameliorate the curriculum. As educational concerns and the structure of schooling changed, the meaning of ‘enrichment’ also evolved. At the risk of over-generalising, a number of positions could be discerned:

1. Those who promote enrichment (e.g. Martinson, 1968) have portrayed it as a means of offering pupils greater freedom and latitude of inquiry, and hence greater fulfilment and intellectual satisfaction, than is generally available within the basic curriculum provisions. Pupils’ personal and social development are also taken into account.

2. Those more in favour of acceleration (e.g. Stanley, 1979) have argued that, at best, by exposing pupils to more advanced subject matter or higher-order treatment of regular material, enrichment only serves to postpone boredom. Thus, appropriate enrichment must be accompanied by acceleration. It has also been noted that at its worst, ill-conceived methods of occupying bright pupils, e.g. by giving them a greater quantity of the same low-level work they have just completed, have often masqueraded as enrichment.

3. Others (e.g. Fox, 1979) see acceleration and enrichment as collections of techniques to be used flexibly to cater for pupils’ educational needs. The labelling of the resulting mix of provisions is therefore an administrative rather than an educational decision.

In mathematics, acceleration and enrichment are sometimes difficult to distinguish. Where mathematical thinking and problem solving are encouraged in enrichment, these often lead to the development of cognitive processes normally associated with chronologically higher levels of education. When accessible topics of interest are introduced earlier than prescribed in the curriculum, the boundary between enrichment and acceleration becomes even more blurred. Yet, even if this means that enrichment is in some sense accelerative, the reverse is not always true. This is because acceleration is primarily ‘a means for quantitative rather than qualitative differentiation.’ (Renzulli, 1979) Thus, using Renzulli’s (1979) analogy, unless additional provisions are made for individual investigative activity, a treadmill is a treadmill even when run at a faster pace.

Due to the difficulties outlined, the comparison with acceleration is limited in its usefulness in helping us to define enrichment. Further, since we cannot assume that different authors writing at different times and in different contexts necessarily share any interpretation of enrichment, the task of unravelling the enrichment literature is extremely difficult.

Conclusion

Oftentimes, ‘enrichment’ acts as a convenient placeholder for a range of educational provisions not prescribed by the curriculum. Thus, although there is an accumulating body of literature centred on specific learning experiences and teaching practices that are commonsensically deemed ‘enriching’, no overall consensus has yet been reached on the definition and nature of enrichment itself. The attempts given above illustrate some of the common difficulties in characterising enrichment from both theoretical and practical perspectives.

Faced with this lack of consensus, many authors use the term ‘enrichment’ in intuitive ways with the (not necessarily justified) assumption that meanings are adequately shared between authors and readers. This often results in the failure to sufficiently elucidate the relationship between enrichment and the general and mathematical concepts it sometimes encompasses, e.g. curriculum extension, curriculum differentiation, curriculum integration, problem solving and mathematical thinking. Yet, our definition and interpretation of ‘enrichment’ have drastic implications for all other issues surrounding it, both actual and perceived. The former includes issues such as for whom enrichment is meant and why, and where and when enrichment should take place. The latter calls for our judgement on whether all learning can be enriched and whether all pupils can benefit from enrichment. These in turn constrain not only the theoretical development of the enrichment concept, but also the forms of enrichment available now and in the future.

Why Enrichment?

Research on pupils’ affect in relation to mathematics (e.g. Nardi & Steward, 2003) has revealed a significant degree of disaffection and disengagement with school mathematics. Numbers recruited into post-16 mathematics and mathematics-related education has been falling noticeably within the last decade. Over the same period, there has also been much anecdotal evidence to suggest that mathematical apathy is becoming increasingly widespread (Smith, 2004; Gardiner, 2003; Lim & Ernest, 1999; Lepper, 1998; Howson & Kahane, 1990). Thus, in addition to its traditional role of supporting the educational needs of mathematically-gifted pupils, providers of mathematics enrichment (e.g. PLUS, UKMT) have increasingly identified the engagement of pupils in mathematics and the promotion and popularisation of the subject as central roles for mathematics enrichment. In this context, disaffected or under-achieving pupils are just as ‘in need’ of enrichment as those who are mathematically-gifted. This opens enrichment to a wider audience than ever before.

In the last two decades, a succession of critical evaluations of the school mathematics curriculum (e.g. Smith, 2004; Cockcroft, 1982) has highlighted failures within mathematics provisions. At the same time, questions have been raised regarding the nature of school mathematics, its utility in daily life, and the type of mathematics that might be deemed relevant or useful in the modern technological society (Bramall & White, 2000; Hoyles et. al., 1999; Willis, 1990). These served to further erode confidence in mainstream mathematics provisions, which some have come to see as inflexible and ineffective in meeting the needs of many groups of pupils. In the face of such curriculum failings, enrichment provides one possible solution to counter concerns about mathematics learning. To compensate for the perceived shortfalls in the curriculum, it presents alternative approaches to curriculum topics, introduces accessible aspects of mathematics not covered by the curriculum, encourages extended investigatory activities, highlights links between aspects of mathematics presented separately in the curriculum as well as mathematical elements in other areas of study (most notably in history, science and art). By presenting pupils with a stimulating experience of mathematics, enrichment becomes a means of fostering mathematical thinking and problem solving.

In sum, the broadened role assumed by mathematics enrichment in the last decade has challenged our previous conceptions of ‘enrichment’. It has also fed the debate about the kinds of ‘educational needs’ which should be met. This leads us to other important questions such as to whom should enrichment be made available, and where and when should it take place.

Enrichment for Whom?

The debate of ‘Enrichment for whom?’ is far from idle or dormant. Nor is it focused solely on emphases and individual commitments. Only recently, Ofsted (2004) reported the use of resources designated for the gifted-and-talented strand of the Excellence in Cities (EiC) scheme for ‘generic enrichment activities’ in a small number of primary schools which did not believe the programme to be ‘conducive to promoting equal opportunities’. Opponents to such well-intentioned actions argued that this constituted a misguided use of resources which failed to nurture talent and created unequal opportunities for gifted pupils across our schools (Eyre, 2004). Given limited educational resources, the outcomes of such debates have serious ramifications for opportunities for pupils.

When curriculum enrichment first began to receive attention in the US about eighty years ago, enrichment arose out of concerns about what were then considered curriculum failings of the time and was considered to be provisions for pupils with special educational needs (Barbe, 1960). Within this premise, the main concern was to support the learning of gifted pupils, whose needs were thought not to have been adequately met (Witty, 1960). Around forty years ago, this conception and practice of enrichment began to enter the collective consciousness of educationalists in the US and the UK. Since then, although the acknowledgement that all pupils can benefit from enrichment has become more widespread — even within gifted education, albeit with some reservations (e.g. Eyre & Marjoram, 1990; Renzulli, 1977) — much of the enrichment literature still retains a gifted focus.

This has not gone unchallenged. Since the 1960s, education in the UK has undergone momentous change, both systemically and in its underpinning values. Examples of these changes include the rise of comprehensive and inclusive education and the decline of educational selection. Riding on the back of such changes, perceptions of enrichment have also been subjects for reconsideration.

Although the explicit use of mathematics enrichment to engage disaffected or lower-attaining pupils (e.g. Walton, 1995) has remained notable exceptions in the enrichment literature, the enrichment audience of today has broadened to include almost every group of pupils. Increasingly, proactive efforts (e.g. NRICH Outreach) are made to reach those pupils who have not traditionally benefited from such provisions e.g. low-attaining pupils or pupils in deprived urban areas. Indeed, as an extension to the current concern for social justice within mathematics education, it could be argued that enrichment should be made available to all pupils, and this might be possible in the future. For now, the question of ‘Enrichment for whom?’ remains contentious.

Where and When should Enrichment Take Place?

Aside from eroding the special status of enrichment, the widening audience for enrichment is also exerting pressure on perceptions of where and when enrichment should take place. When enrichment is ‘individualised’ (Thomas, 1991), i.e. when it acts as additional support for a few gifted pupils only, it might be ‘natural’ for this enrichment to be ‘given’ to those selected during lunch-times and in after-school clubs, or reserved as extension work to occupy the minds and stretch the understanding of those few pupils when they have finished appropriate set work ahead of others in the class (Witty, 1960). Such thinking is supported by conceptions of enrichment as ‘the deliberate differentiation of curriculum content and activities for the superior pupils in a heterogeneous class.’ (NEA, 1950, as cited in Barbe, 1960)

As enrichment began to be seen as the entitlement of many, it became less clear whether it should be a part of, or additional to, ‘everyday’ teaching and learning. Further, it is by no means certain that enrichment must take place in a ‘classroom’ setting. Take ‘extended planning’ (Thomas, 1991) — the form of enrichment whereby teachers introduce material not prescribed in the curriculum to the whole class in order to update the curriculum, integrate other subject matters, or include topics of local importance in their teaching — as an example. At first glance, having to engage the whole class might appear to impose certain logistic constraints on timing and venue. However, as ‘extended planning’ includes any form of educational field-trip as well as educational visits by any person with special expertise, given sufficient planning, enrichment could take place almost anywhere and in almost any format.

Taken even further, enrichment might be thought of as the ultimate goal of education. Then, the objective might be to make all learning experiences so ‘rich’ that enrichment becomes, at the same time, pervasive and redundant. Whilst this ideal may seem difficult to realise, its practicality depends on our answer to a further question: can all learning be enriched?

Can All Learning be Enriched?

Closely related to the questions, ‘Enrichment for whom?’ and ‘Where and when should enrichment take place?’ is the question of whether all learning can be enriched. This can in turn be split into two sub-questions:

1. Can all pupils benefit from enrichment?

2. Are all topics of study equally suitable for an ‘enriched’ presentation?

The answer to these depends on the conceptualisation of enrichment adopted. At one extreme, if we think of enrichment as ‘the deliberate differentiation of curriculum content and activities for the superior pupils in a heterogeneous class’ (NEA, 1950, as cited in Barbe, 1960), then enrichment involves the use of specially-developed learning material from which only the gifted pupils will benefit. Such enrichment material might be based on more advanced subject matter or require higher-level treatment of the basic curriculum topics. On the other hand, if we conceive of mathematics enrichment as ‘problem solving and mathematical thinking that is linked to mathematical contexts’ (Piggott, 2004a), then it could be argued that enrichment can and should pervade the curriculum as a whole. Further, not only should all pupils be entitled to enrichment, they would all benefit from such experiences.

The question of whether all learning can be enriched tests the nature of our commitment to education as well as to enrichment. The answer we give has grave implications for the kinds of pupil who will be offered enrichment, the form that this enrichment will take, and all the social-justice issues that will therefore arise. In turn, the enrichment practices so framed will re-shape our theoretical conceptions of what enrichment means.

Summary

[pic]

Figure 1: Questions surrounding ‘enrichment’ and their possible answers

A web of questions surrounds enrichment (Figure 1). To every question, there are a number of possible, but sometimes conflicting, answers. These could be taken to represent the many methods of enriching learning, the many reasons for doing so, and the many occasions in which enrichment might be appropriate or desirable (Eyre & Marjoram, 1990). Every possibility can be well-supported. In the end, our responses to these questions may betray more about our own educational standpoints.

References

Barbe, W. B. (1960) What is Enrichment? In J. F. Magary and J. R. Eichorn (Eds.) The Exceptional Child: A Book of Readings, Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., New York.

Bramall, S. & White, J. (2000) Why Learn Maths? Bedford Way Papers, Institute of Education, University of London, London.

Clendening, C. P. & Davies, R. A. (1983) Challenging the Gifted: Curriculum Enrichment and Acceleration Models, R. R. Bowker Company, New York.

Clendening, C. P. & Davies, R. A. (1980) Creating Programs for the Gifted: A Guide for Teachers, Librarians, and Students, R. R. Bowker Company, New York.

Cockcroft, W. H. (1982) Mathematics Counts: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools under the Chairmanship of Dr W. H. Cockcroft, HMSO, London.

Collins English Dictionary (Third Edition), HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow.

Correll, M. M. (1978) Teaching the Gifted and Talented, Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, Indiana.

Eyre, D. (2004) Head of Academy Slates Schools Failing to Spend Money Earmarked for Gifted Children. Available on-line at . (Retrieved on 6 January 2005.)

Eyre, D. & Marjoram, T. (1990) Enriching and Extending the National Curriculum, Kogan Page Books for Teachers Series, Kogan Page Ltd., London.

Fox, L. H. (1979) Educational Acceleration of Intellectually Talented Youths: Prolonged Discussion by a Varied Group of Professionals — Sexism, Democracy, and the Acceleration versus Enrichment Controversy. In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn and J. C. Stanley (Eds.) Educating the Gifted: Acceleration and Enrichment, Revised and Expanded Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Hyman Blumberg Symposium on Research in Early Childhood Education, John Hopkins University Press Ltd., London.

Gardiner, T. (2003) It Could Be Them, Times Educational Supplement, London. Published on 19 September 2003.

Gold, M. J. (1979) Educational Acceleration of Intellectually Talented Youths: Prolonged Discussion by a Varied Group of Professionals — Acceleration: Simplistic Gimmickry. In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn and J. C. Stanley (Eds.) Educating the Gifted: Acceleration and Enrichment, Revised and Expanded Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Hyman Blumberg Symposium on Research in Early Childhood Education, John Hopkins University Press Ltd., London.

Howson, A. G. & Kahane, J.-P. (1990) A Study Overview. In A. G. Howson and J.-P. Kahane (Eds.) The Popularization of Mathematics, ICMI Study Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hoyles, C., Morgan, C. & Woodhouse, G. (1999) Rethinking the Mathematics Curriculum, Studies in Mathematics Education Series: No. 10, Falmer Press, London.

Keating, D. P. (1979) Educational Acceleration of Intellectually Talented Youths: Prolonged Discussion by a Varied Group of Professionals — The Acceleration/Enrichment Debate: Basic Issues. In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn and J. C. Stanley (Eds.) Educating the Gifted: Acceleration and Enrichment, Revised and Expanded Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Hyman Blumberg Symposium on Research in Early Childhood Education, John Hopkins University Press Ltd., London.

Lepper, A. (1998) Mathematics for Employment. Paper presented at the ESRC seminar on ‘The Production of a Public Understanding of Mathematics’ at the University of Birmingham, 11 November 1998. Available on-line at . (Retrieved on 22 November 2003.)

Lim, C. S. & Ernest, P. (1999) Public Images of Mathematics. Paper presented at the ESRC seminar on ‘The Production of a Public Understanding of Mathematics’ at the University of Birmingham, 10 February 1999. Available on-line at . (Retrieved on 22 November 2003.)

Martinson, R. A. (1968) Curriculum Enrichment for the Gifted in the Primary Grades, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey.

Nardi, E. & Steward, S. (2003) Is Mathematics T.I.R.E.D.? A Profile of Quiet Disaffection in the Secondary Mathematics Classroom, British Educational Research Journal 29 (3) 345-367.

NEA (1950) Education of the Gifted, Educational Policies Commission.

NRICH Outreach. In the Millennium Mathematics Project News Archive. Available on-line at . (Retrieved on 10 March 2005.)

Ofsted (2004) Excellence in Cities: The Primary Extension — Real Stories, HMI 2394, London. Available on-line at . (Retrieved on 6 January 2005.)

Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition), Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Piggott, J. (2004a) Mathematics Enrichment: What Is It and Who Is It For? Paper presented at the BERA annual conference at the University of Manchester, 15-18 September 2004. Available on-line at . (Retrieved on 14 December 2004.)

Piggott, J. (2004b) Developing a Framework for Mathematics Enrichment. Paper presented at the symposium on ‘Critical Thinking in Teaching and Learning’ at the University of West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad, 14 January 2004. Available on-line at . (Retrieved on 14 December 2004.)

PLUS. Homepage. Available on-line at . (Retrieved on 10 March 2005.)

Renzulli, J. S. (1979) Educational Acceleration of Intellectually Talented Youths: Prolonged Discussion by a Varied Group of Professionals — Some Concerns about Educational Acceleration for Intellectually Talented Youth, or Are Treadmills Really Different if We Run Them at a Faster Rate? In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn and J. C. Stanley (Eds.) Educating the Gifted: Acceleration and Enrichment, Revised and Expanded Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Hyman Blumberg Symposium on Research in Early Childhood Education, John Hopkins University Press Ltd., London.

Renzulli, J. S. (1977) The Enrichment Triad Model: A Guide for Developing Defensible Programs for the Gifted and Talented, Creative Learning Press Inc., Connecticut.

Smith, A. (2004) Making Mathematics Count: The Report of Professor Adrian Smith’s Inquiry into Post-14 Mathematics Education, The Stationary Office Ltd., London.

Stanley, J. C. (1979) Identifying and Nurturing the Intellectually Gifted. In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn and J. C. Stanley (Eds.) Educating the Gifted: Acceleration and Enrichment, Revised and Expanded Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Hyman Blumberg Symposium on Research in Early Childhood Education, John Hopkins University Press Ltd., London.

Terman, L. M. & Oden, M. H. (1979) The Problem of School Acceleration. In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn and J. C. Stanley (Eds.) Educating the Gifted: Acceleration and Enrichment, Revised and Expanded Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Hyman Blumberg Symposium on Research in Early Childhood Education, John Hopkins University Press Ltd., London.

Thomas, R. M. (1991) Enrichment and Supplementary Materials. In A. Lewy (Ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Curriculum, Pergamon Press Plc., Oxford.

UKMT. Homepage. Available on-line at . (Retrieved on 10 March 2005.)

Walton, G. (1995) Mathematics and the Car. In J. Wakefield and L. Velardi (Eds.) Celebrating Mathematics Learning, Mathematical Association of Victoria, Victoria.

Willis, S. (1990) Being Numerate: What Counts? The Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd., Victoria.

Witty, P. (1960) Current Practices in Educating the Gifted Child. In J. F. Magary and J. R. Eichorn (Eds.) The Exceptional Child: A Book of Readings, Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., New York.

Worcester, D. A. (1979) Enrichment. In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn and J. C. Stanley (Eds.) Educating the Gifted: Acceleration and Enrichment, Revised and Expanded Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Hyman Blumberg Symposium on Research in Early Childhood Education, John Hopkins University Press Ltd., London.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Kenneth Ruthven for his guidance in preparing this paper as well as the ESRC and the Isaac Newton Trust for their generous sponsorship.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download