Concurrent enrollment: comparing how educators and students categorize students’ motivations

Abstract

High-ability students have special education needs that are often overlooked or misunderstood (Blaas in Aust J Guid Couns 24(2):243–255, 2014) which may result in talent loss (Saha and Sikora in Int J Contemp Sociol Discuss J Contemp Ideas Res 48(1):9–34, 2011). Educational acceleration can help avoid these circumstances and support high-ability students to reach their full potential by providing a better match between students’ abilities and the pace of their education (Assouline et al. in A nation empowered: evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, Iowa City, 2015). Concurrent or dual enrollment is a type of acceleration in which students are enrolled in two levels of school simultaneously, for example, secondary students might attend college or university. In this comparative research, we examined how educators and students categorized students’ motivations to choose concurrent enrollment through a group concept mapping process. Participants structured a set of 85 reasons for concurrent enrollment by sorting the data into meaningful groups. We applied multi-dimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis to the grouped data to create a cluster map of the educators’ categorizations. Key concepts in the educators’ map included (a) Planning Ahead, (b) Love Learning, (c) Challenge, (d) Smart kids! and (e) Meet Intellectual Peers. Next, we quantitatively and qualitatively compared the educators’ concept map to a map created by students in an earlier study. Using Procrustes analysis, we found overall similarities in the placement of individual statements on the two maps. However, our analysis of the cluster solutions revealed some differences between educators’ and students’ maps. Of particular interest, the students’ map had more categories, suggesting that students categorized their motivations more finely than educators did. Educational practice implications are discussed.