THE PROBLEM Little research has been done to examine the nature of reading instruction for talented readers, which has caused educational researchers to take a closer look at high achieving readers (Reis et al., 2003). THE MYTHS AND TRUTHS Myth 1: Gifted and talented readers as a group are homogeneous and should receive the same reading instruction. Allen, N. (2011, April 4). There is no “one size fits all.” Retrieved from: http://nicolefallen.blogspot.com/2011/04/there-is-noone-size-fits-all.html (WOOD, 2008, P. 19) THE MYTHS AND TRUTHS Truth: Gifted and talented readers are a diverse group with varied intellectual, emotional, cultural, and linguistic differences. Similar to struggling readers, advanced readers should have an appropriately individualized program designed to meet their needs. (WOOD, 2003, P. 19) THE MYTHS AND TRUTHS Myth 2: Gifted and talented readers are experts at text comprehension. (WOOD, 2008, P. 19) THE MYTHS AND TRUTHS Truth: While it is true that many gifted readers have achieved higher level comprehension skills, all readers can benefit from higher level questioning and more in depth reading of literature selections. (WOOD, 2003, P. 19) THE MYTHS AND TRUTHS Myth 3: Gifted and talented readers should be given complete control over their choice of reading materials. (WOOD, 2008, P. 19) THE MYTHS AND TRUTHS Truth: Choice is very important, however, students should be exposed to a variety of reading material from different genres and in different formats. (WOOD, 2003, P. 19) THE CHALLENGES “Two central challenges for educators are (1) identifying the correct levels of academic difficulty for each student and (2) finding methods for determining whether texts are appropriately challenging” (Reis, 2009, p. 207). THE CHALLENGES Teachers have to consider the reading and maturity levels of students before deciding whether or not to put students in advanced instruction (Moore, 2005). SCHOOLWIDE ENRICHMENT MODEL-READING Project Overview The Schoolwide Enrichment Model – Reading Framework (SEMR) includes three general categories of reading instruction that are dynamic in nature and designed to enable some flexibility of implementation and content in response to both teachers' and students' needs. The SEM-R was developed to increase reading challenge and enjoyment for all students, but one important goal of this reading framework is to challenge talented readers. (Reis, Little, Muller, Bachinski, Firmender & Helbling, 2009) SCHOOLWIDE ENRICHMENT MODEL-READING Phase One: The teacher selects literature for the students. Before, during, and after instruction the teacher will use higher order thinking questions with the students. SCHOOLWIDE ENRICHMENT MODEL-READING Phase Two: Students develop self-regulation skills in a supportive, independent reading environment. SCHOOLWIDE ENRICHMENT MODEL-READING Phase Three: Self-choice enrichment opportunities are provided for students. These opportunities could be in the form of literature circles, creative writing, or individual projects. SELF-REGULATED READING INSTRUCTION Self-regulated learning requires personal goal setting that can be set using a structured learning environment that provides many learning experiences and opportunities for higher levels of thinking (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). SELF-REGULATED READING INSTRUCTION During the self-regulated reading instruction process (SRI) can be supported and developed in students by the following goals: 1. helps clarify what good performance is (goals, criteria, expected standards); 2. facilitates the development of self-assessment (reflection) in learning; 3. delivers high quality information to students about their learning; 4. encourages teacher and peer dialogue around learning; 5. encourages positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem; 6. provides opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance; 7. provides information to teachers that can be used to help shape teaching. (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006, p. 205) CASE STUDIES INVOLVING SEM-R Researchers Housand and Reis completed a research report about the use of Self-Regulated Instruction (SRI) in two different classrooms (Housand & Reis, 2008). Classroom One used SEM-R with SRI effectively. Classroom Two used SEM-R with SRI ineffectively. HOW DOES EFFECTIVE SEM-R LOOK? Classroom One • Consistent, smooth transition between phases of SEM-R. • Uninterrupted conferences are held in Phase Two. • Student goals are achieved while engaged in silent reading. • Higher level thinking questions are used that address depth and complexity. • Strategy instruction is implemented through verbal use and posters around the classroom. (Housand & Reis, 2008) HOW DOES INEFFECTIVE SEM-R LOOK? Classroom Two • Transitional time was disruptive and disorganized. • The teacher did not engage the students in a book talk. • Active listening behaviors were not evident. • Little to no strategy instruction took place. • Conferencing involved low-level questions or excuses for disengagement. • The classroom environment did not provide any strategy reminders. (Housand & Reis, 2008) OTHER PROGRAMS TO CONSIDER • Autonomous Learner Model: Betts • Levels of Service Approach: Treffinger and Selby • Purdue Three-Stage Enrichment Model: Feidhusen et al. • Parallel Curriculum Model: Tomlinson, Kaplan, Renzulli, Purcell, Leppien, and Burns • Multiple Menu Model: Renzulli • Integrated Curriculum Model: VanTassel-Baska • Mentoring Mathematical Minds Model: Gavin, Sheffield, Chapin, and Dailey • The Grid: Constructing Differentiated Curriculum for the Gifted: Kaplan • Talents Unlimited Model: Schlichter (Davis, G., Rimm, S., Siegle, D., 2011) REFERENCES Allen, N. (2011, April 4). There is no “one size fits all.” Retrieved from: http://nicolefallen.blogspot.com/2011/04/there-is-no-one-size-fits-all.html Davis, G., Rimm, S., Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented.(6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Housand, A., & Reis, S. M. (2008). Self-regulated learning in reading: Gifted pedagogy and instructional settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 108–136. Moore, M. (2005). Meeting the educational needs of young gifted learners in the regular classroom. Gifted Child Today, 28(4), 40-65. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. Reis, S. (2009). How academically gifted elementary, urban students respond to challenge in an enriched, differentiated reading program . Journal for Education of the Gifted, 33(2), 203240. Reis, S. M., Gubbins, E. J., Briggs, C., Schreiber, F. J., Richards, S., Jacobs, J., Eckert, R. D., Renzulli, J. S., & Alexander, M. (2003). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few opportunities for continuous progress (RM03184). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Reis, S., Little, C., Muller, L., Bachinski, J., Firmender, J., & Helbling, J. (2009). Schoolwide enrichment model - reading. Retrieved from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/SEMR/about/home.html Wood, P. (2008). Reading instruction with gifted and talented readers: A series of unfortunate events or a sequence of auspicous results. Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 16-25.