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’.
Wai Yi Feng
CamERA 2005
1
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’.
Wai Yi Feng
CamERA 2005
2
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 lowlevel 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’,
Wai Yi Feng
CamERA 2005
3
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
Wai Yi Feng
CamERA 2005
4
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
Wai Yi Feng
CamERA 2005
5
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 socialWai Yi Feng
CamERA 2005
6
justice issues that will therefore arise. In turn, the enrichment practices so framed will re-shape our
theoretical conceptions of what enrichment means.
SUMMARY
Compensate
for shortfalls in
the curriculum
Popularise
and promote
mathematics
Engage those
disaffected
Gifted and
talented pupils
Disaffected
pupils
Support special
educational needs
Extension
Why Enrichment?
Enrichment
for Whom?
ENRICHMENT
What is
Enrichment?
Low-attaining
pupils
All pupils
When work is
finished ahead
of schedule
Regular intracurricular
events
Problem
solving
Mathematical
thinking
Where and When
should Enrichment
Take Place?
Can All Learning
be Enriched?
Acceleration
Suitable
for all
pupils
Regular extra- Special Suitable for Suitable Suitable only
curricular
for certain
events some topics for all
events
topics
pupils
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 wellsupported. 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.
Wai Yi Feng
CamERA 2005
7
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 http://www.warwick.ac.uk/gifted/news/ofsted-eic-report.htm. (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
http://www.ioe.ac.uk/esrcmaths. (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 http://www.ioe.ac.uk/esrcmaths. (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
http://mmp.maths.org/news/archive.html. (Retrieved on 10 March 2005.)
OFSTED (2004) Excellence in Cities: The Primary Extension — Real Stories, HMI 2394, London. Available on-line at
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubs.displayfile&id=3807&type=pdf. (Retrieved on 6
January 2005.)
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (Second Edition), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wai Yi Feng
CamERA 2005
8
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
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003649.doc. (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 http://nrich.maths.org/content/id/2719/a-framework-for-enrichment.doc. (Retrieved on 14
December 2004.)
PLUS. Homepage. Available on-line at http://plus.maths.org/about.html. (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 http://www.mathcomp.leeds.ac.uk/Home.htm. (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.
Wai Yi Feng
CamERA 2005
9