Summer Programmes

Summer academic programmes are a common type of programming offered to students of high-ability. While these programmes may be short in length running for two or three weeks, they have several defining features such as: an accelerated and enriched curriculum; dedicated staff; peer interaction with others of similar ability; and a supportive climate for growth (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2003; Enerson, 1993). Matthews and McBee (2007) claim that despite the short length of the programmes, behavioural changes can take place relatively rapidly once the learning environment has been altered.

58

A study from Enerson (1993) investigated the experiences of students taking part in a summer residential programmes for gifted students. Enerson (1993) applied the principles of phenomenology and used interviews in order “discern how a group of students saw and interpreted the value of summer programs” (p. 169). These interviews were conducted on campus while students were taking part in the programmes. The findings indicated that the programme environment offered students the chance to meet the psychological, academic and social needs which were un-catered for in the normal school setting.

Hany and Grosh (2007) also put forward that there is substantial anecdotal evidence to suggest that even short encounters with peers who have the same interests, passions, and intellectual level can positively influence gifted adolescents’ self-concept and life goals. They maintain that if gifted students in a summer programme are able to recognise that they are capable of solving complex problems; their aspiration level should immediately rise thus motivating them to pursue demanding school subjects and study programmes.

A report from the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University which was compiled using data from thirty years of research studies outlined the benefits of the summer programmes for students at CTY (CTY, n.d.). According to the findings, students benefit three ways from programme participation; academically, socially and personally. These benefits for students taking part in summer programmes align with similar findings from VanTassel-Baska (1984). In the study from CTY, academic benefits are weighted highest, followed by social and finally by personal. The academic benefits cited include the ability for students of being able to experience college life; achievement gains in the subject area studied, and improved thinking and study skills. The social benefits described relate to the feeling of a sense of belonging and the creation of friendships with peers with the same intellectual abilities as themselves. As the vast majority of students would

59

stay residentially on the summer programmes, many of the personal benefits relate to increased levels of maturity and independence for students who were living away from home. The report also highlights that having the opportunity to be immersed in one particular subject for a number of weeks is both highly challenging but at the same time, highly stimulating. In light of these research findings, Kaul (2014) suggests that it is necessary to be mindful that historically CTY’s summer programmes have served students from higher socio-economic groups and that the cost of the courses is presently over $3500 to attend. Therefore, these reported effects may not be necessarily representative of the effects for low-income students.

For promising learners coming from disadvantaged backgrounds, Olszewski-Kubilius and Lee (2004, p.156) believe that students from disadvantaged backgrounds can benefit greatly from participation in summer programmes, as such programmes can “…ameliorate the effects of poverty or isolation, and may uniquely contribute to the process of talent development by exposing gifted students to academically challenging coursework and cultivating social support from gifted peers”.

Lee, Olsezewski-Kubilius, and Peternel (2009), explored the long-term effects of an enrichment programme for low-income students focusing on the areas of maths and science by using interviews with both students and parents of the programme. They concluded that there were a number of positive outcomes for students’ participating in the programme. By taking part in the courses, students were able to improve their academic skills while augmenting their content knowledge and at the same time, gaining hands-on experiences. Socially, students were able to expand their social networks with new high-ability peers and thus, were able to receive more support for higher levels of achievement. Furthermore, such academic experiences were also found to raise both student and parental expectations in relation to succeeding at higher levels of education.

60

In terms of negative findings, there was no peer pressure felt by students taking part, although some students did feel challenged in balancing social encounters with their peer groups outside of the programme.

Using the study carried out by Lee et al. (2009) as a springboard, Kaul et al (2015) proposed a model for promoting potential amongst low-income gifted students. The model highlights how parents and families, the programme itself (programme content and programme context) and the people involved (mentors, instructors, and peers) are the three key components which can contribute to positive outcomes for both parents and students. The model is interesting as it links the three critical components to the possible results relating to student participation. However, this model fails to recognise the role of other stakeholders outside that of parents and families, such as the role of the school authorities in promoting high achievement. The role of the school is considered important as this is the environment where students spend the majority of their time and gain critical learning experiences. As a result, such an intermediary should be included, as in the case of Aiming High (see section 1.5.2). Furthermore, no negative findings were cited in relation to Kaul’s (2014) study which is somewhat surprising.

In the report from CTY Johns Hopkins (CTY, n.d.) which compiled an overview of the benefits for students participating in summer programs at CTY, academic, personal and social benefits are also cited for students coming from under-represented backgrounds. Low income students demonstrated similar achievement gains and reported more pervasive social, cognitive and academic benefits. A higher percentage of the under- represented students rated open-mindfulness, exposure to diverse backgrounds, setting higher academic goals, and preparation for college as benefits of their summer programme experience compared to the overall CTY population (Kaul, 2014). Kaul (2014, p.61) emphasises that comprehensive studies are needed into summer programmes

61

which target students from disadvantaged backgrounds, as “…limited research has been conducted on gifted programs with a summer component for low-income learners and no research examines the effects of summer-only programs for economically disadvantaged students”.

This section of the literature review aimed to illuminate the fact that while summer programmes are short in duration, research findings have consistently shown that even the application of minimal changes such as the provision of challenging and advanced curricula has been found to significantly impact on the achievement profiles of students (Swanson, 2010; VanTassel-Baska, 2010). By engaging with peers who share similar values and interests, students can develop an increased focus on academics and a motivation to achieve (VanTassel-Baska, 2010).

62

2.3.3.2. A Selection of Academic Programmes Focusing On Low Income, High Ability