Soc Psychol Educ (2017) 20:195–213

DOI 10.1007/s11218-016-9364-8

Concurrent enrollment: comparing how educators

and students categorize students’ motivations

Alec Dare1 • Lynn Dare2 • Elizabeth Nowicki2

Received: 27 August 2015 / Accepted: 28 December 2016 / Published online: 8 February 2017
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Abstract High-ability students have special education needs that are often over-
looked 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 educa-
tors’ 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 solu-
tions revealed some differences between educators’ and students’ maps. Of par-
ticular interest, the students’ map had more categories, suggesting that students

& Lynn Dare

ldare@uwo.ca
1
McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
2
Western University, London, Canada

123
196 A. Dare et al.

categorized their motivations more finely than educators did. Educational practice
implications are discussed.

Keywords Concurrent enrollment
Dual enrollment
Group concept mapping

Acceleration
Students’ motivations

1 Introduction

Educational practices throughout the world aim to be inclusive (Nowicki 2012) and
equitable (Saha and Sikora 2011). Inclusion seeks to ensure all students feel
accepted at school regardless of individual differences (Specht 2013), and equity
aims to inspire and support all students to reach their full potential (Ontario Ministry
of Education 2014). Students with special learning needs require individualized
programming to realise their full potential, and students who have higher than
typical academic ability are no exception (Kanevsky 2011). Unfortunately, the
needs of high-ability students are often misunderstood or overlooked (Blaas 2014)
and, as a result, these students may not achieve to their full capabilities (Assouline
et al. 2015). Saha and Sikora (2011) use the term talent loss to describe this failure
in the education system where ‘‘academically capable and strongly motivated youth
encounter difficulties in maintaining or realising their educational and occupational
expectations’’ (p. 9).
One evidence-based intervention that can support the needs of high-ability
students is educational acceleration (Assouline et al. 2015). Acceleration aims to
match students’ abilities and talents with optimal learning experiences, based on
students’ readiness and motivation (National Association for Gifted Children 2004).
It can be practiced in many ways, such as early entrance to school, single-subject
acceleration, grade skipping, and concurrent enrollment (among others). Acceler-
ation is cost-effective and appropriate for a diverse range of high-ability learners,
including students with learning difficulties, minority students, those from low
income backgrounds, and those living in rural areas (Assouline et al. 2015).
Moreover, acceleration can support an inclusive approach to education by allowing
high-ability students to move through material at a faster rate than typically seen,
while remaining in regular classes. Where accelerative options are not available,
high-ability students may be restricted from achieving their full potential.
In our earlier study (Dare and Nowicki 2015), we used Trochim’s group concept
mapping (Kane and Trochim 2007) to examine students’ reasons for choosing to
accelerate through concurrent enrollment. Concurrent, or dual, enrollment is an
intervention where students are enrolled in two levels of school simultaneously
(Assouline et al. 2015). Our study included secondary students who attended
university while completing high school. Participants first brainstormed reasons for
concurrent enrollment, then sorted those reasons into meaningful groups. We
analyzed the data to create a group concept map. The map revealed seven themes
that focused on preparing for university, demonstrating initiative, getting ahead,
love of learning, finding self-fulfillment, seeking challenge, and socializing (Dare
and Nowicki 2015). We interpreted the results within a self-determination theory

123
Concurrent enrollment: comparing how educators and… 197

framework (Ryan and Deci 2000) and found students expressed predominantly self-
determined motivations to accelerate through concurrent enrollment.
In our current study, we engaged educators in categorizing students’ reasons for
concurrent enrollment. We then quantitatively and qualitatively compared educa-
tors’ and students’ categorizations to determine whether they structured similar
concepts among the data. Educators’ categorizations are important because
educators are key stakeholders in the decision to accelerate; they inform students
about acceleration, identify suitable candidates, guide students in educational
planning, and support students who accelerate. In this view, educators act as
gatekeepers to acceleration. Indeed, for students in our earlier study to participate in
concurrent enrollment, they required nomination from a principal, guidance
counsellor, or teacher at their secondary school. Therefore, it is important to
understand how educators view students’ motivations to accelerate. The purpose of
our study was to understand how educators categorized students’ reasons for
choosing concurrent enrollment, and to compare educators’ and students’
categorizations.

1.1 Concurrent enrollment as a form of acceleration for high-ability

students

In this article, we use the term high-ability students to refer to students who are
capable of high academic performance (Steenbergen-Hu and Moon 2011). High-
ability students tend to engage in abstract thinking, display persistent curiosity, and
grasp new material quickly (Feldhusen 1982; Kanevsky 2011; Stanley 2000; Winzer
2002). Consequently, these exceptional students require individualized educational
programming to address their unique learning needs and help them reach their full
potential. When students experience a good fit between their abilities and their
progress through educational materials, they are more likely to experience positive
outcomes. Conversely, Kanevsky and Clelland (2013) paint this picture of what can
happen when there is not a good fit: ‘‘The child who finishes early the assignment he
or she could have done several years ago, who finds the teacher’s careful
presentations obvious and elementary, is forced to waste precious time and to find
some means to adapt to the classroom scene. Such adaptations are not likely to be
positive ones’’ (p. 233). Indeed, students are more likely to persist in education
when their intrinsic motivations are supported (Renaud-Dubé et al. 2015). To offer
effective support, educators need to understand what motivates high-ability
students.
Because high-ability students learn at a faster rate than their typically developing
peers (Feldhusen 1982; Kanevsky and Clelland 2013), acceleration is one way to
accommodate their special learning needs (Assouline et al. 2015). Carefully planned
acceleration allows qualified students, as determined by their readiness and
motivation, to move through educational systems more rapidly than usual (National
Association for Gifted Children 2004). Educators play a critical role in planning
acceleration by identifying potential candidates, contributing to placement deci-
sions, and delivering individualized programming within inclusive classrooms.
Perhaps surprisingly, in light of evidence demonstrating favourable outcomes of

123
198 A. Dare et al.

acceleration, some educators are apprehensive about recommending it in practice

(e.g., Assouline et al. 2015; Colangelo et al. 2004). Research has shown that
educators’ hesitancy towards practicing acceleration has been associated with
concerns regarding potential negative social and emotional consequences, and these
concerns may vary according to the type of acceleration (Gallagher et al. 2011;
Wood et al. 2010). For example, Gallagher et al. (2011) found more support among
teachers for subject acceleration than grade-skipping, and Wood et al. (2010) found
school counsellors were more comfortable recommending dual enrollment than
grade skipping.
Concurrent or dual enrollment refers to enrollment in two levels of schooling at
once and can include pre-school and elementary, or elementary and secondary
enrollment. In this study, we use the term concurrent enrollment to refer to
secondary students simultaneously enrolled in high school and university. This term
has been used by researchers in the United States (Assouline et al. 2015), Canada
(Dare and Nowicki 2015), and Australia (Gross et al. 2011), although Hoogeveen
(2015) used the term dual enrollment when referring to the European context. We
have chosen the term concurrent enrollment to distinguish the courses taken by
students in our study from dual credits, in which students take one course that earns
credit towards both high school and college diplomas simultaneously. Dual credits
are becoming increasingly available across the United States of America (Taylor
2015). In contrast, concurrently enrolled students in this study participated in
genuine university courses, rather than special high school courses offered in dual
credit, advanced placement, and International Baccalaureate programs. In other
words, these students participated in regular, inclusive classroom experiences at a
post-secondary institution through a concurrent enrollment program.

1.2 Benefits of concurrent enrollment

For high-ability secondary students, concurrent enrollment provides a unique

opportunity to experience university life, to explore individual interests, and to
engage in academic challenges beyond the scope of high school. This immersive
university experience can help students prepare for the transition to full-time post-
secondary education (Dare and Nowicki 2015). Further, the wide selection of
academic courses available in the university setting gives concurrently enrolled
students greater opportunities to select courses specific to their field of interest. This
aspect of concurrent enrollment can help students refine their academic career
choices. Additionally, concurrent enrollment provides high-ability students with an
opportunity to engage in academic challenge and helps alleviate the potential for
boredom in high school (Wolf and Geiger 1986).
In our previous study (Dare and Nowicki 2015), we gathered data from
concurrently enrolled secondary students regarding their motivations to take part in
a concurrent enrollment program at a university in south-western Ontario. The
current study is an extension of our earlier work. In the current study, educators
categorized the students’ data and we used statistical analyses to produce a concept
map of the educators’ categorizations. We then compared educators’ and students’
categorizations. To our knowledge, this is the first study to quantitatively and

123
Concurrent enrollment: comparing how educators and… 199

qualitatively compare how educators and students categorize data on students’

motivations to accelerate.

1.3 Group concept mapping

We used group concept mapping (Trochim 1989) to examine and compare how
educators and students categorized reasons for concurrent enrollment. This multi-
phase method uniquely engages participants in interpreting the data. In the first
phase, participants generate responses to a focus question. The researcher collects
the responses and cleans the data set by splitting compound ideas, eliminating
duplicates, and removing unclear or irrelevant responses. In the next phase,
participants read through the set of cleaned statements, sort the data into groups, and
give each group a name. By categorizing the data, participants act as expert coders
of the data, sorting statements into thematic categories.
After participants have categorized the data, the researcher applies multidimen-
sional scaling (MDS) and hierarchical cluster analysis to the sorted data. Based on
these analyses, the researcher graphs a two-dimensional map of key concepts that
emerge across the sorted data. A particularly valuable aspect of group concept
mapping is that rigourous statistical analyses are applied to qualitative data, making
this approach an inherently mixed method. In addition to providing statistical
rigour, group concept mapping expressly involves participants in a broad
consideration of the research question as they structure all participants’ ideas
(Trochim 1989). According to Rush and Wheeler (2011), by exposing participants
to perceptions beyond their own, group concept mapping can foster a deeper
consideration of differing viewpoints. Furthermore, when different groups sort the
same set of statements, we can quantitatively compare the groups’ data point maps
using least-squares orthogonal Procrustes analysis (Cantinotti et al. 2009; Sjodahl
Hammarlund et al. 2014). Consequently, group concept mapping is an ideal method
to examine and compare two groups’ ideas about the same topic. Given these
advantages, we considered group concept mapping to be an ideal approach to
answer our research question while at the same time giving educator-participants
direct insight into the motivations of high-ability secondary students.

2 Method

2.1 Participants

There were 12 participants in the current study, ten females and two males. All
participants were attendees at a Ministry of Education Forum in May 2015, and they
included ten educators and two professionals working in the field of education with
the Ministry or in a Faculty of Education. Two had completed undergraduate
degrees and ten had completed graduate degrees. Among participants, seven had
direct experience with acceleration (taught, parented, or worked with an accelerated
student), one had indirect experience (knew a student or students who accelerated),
and three had no experience (did not know any students who accelerated). As group

123
200 A. Dare et al.

concept mapping requires at least ten participants to produce well-defined results

(Kane and Trochim 2007), our sample size exceeded the recommended minimum
for this methodology.

2.2 Measures

In our earlier study (Dare and Nowicki 2015), concurrently enrolled students
brainstormed 85 statements in response to the following focus prompt: We’d like to
better understand the many reasons high-achieving students have for participating
in the [concurrent enrollment] program. Think of as many reasons as you can, and
please list below. In this study, we asked educators to sort the students’ responses
into groups and give each group a label.

2.3 Procedure

2.3.1 Ethics approval and consent

Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the researchers’ university ethics
review board. Before taking part, all participants received information on the study
and were briefed on informed consent.

2.3.2 Recruitment of participants

The first and second authors recruited participants during an Education Forum
hosted by the Ontario Ministry of Education. They presented information on the
earlier study with high-ability students, explained the study methodology, described
the purpose of the current study, and obtained written informed consent from forum
attendees who wished to participate.

2.3.3 Data generation and statement structuring by students

In response to the focus prompt described above, twenty-one secondary students

who were concurrently enrolled in a course at a university in southwestern Ontario
generated 85 unique statements. Students structured the data by sorting the
statements into groups. The sorted data were analyzed (using MDS and hierarchical
cluster analysis) to produce a group concept map illustrating how the students
conceptualized reasons for participation in concurrent enrollment.

2.3.4 Statement structuring by educators

Educators participating in this study structured the data using the same method—by
sorting the statements into groups. Participants completed the sorting at a quiet
table in the presentation hall during a one-day learning forum. Each participant used
a stack of cards with one statement printed on each card. Participants sorted the
cards into piles, categorizing the data in any way that made sense to them (Kane and
Trochim 2007). Participants could make as many piles as they liked, but were asked

123
Concurrent enrollment: comparing how educators and… 201

not to create categories such as ‘‘miscellaneous’’ or ‘‘other.’’ When the cards were
sorted to the participants’ satisfaction, we secured the piles of cards using staples
and paper clips. After sorting the statements, participants labelled each category by
writing a name for the category on the back of the last card in the pile. We entered
the sorted data into Concept Systems Global software for analysis.

3 Results

3.1 Multi-dimensional scaling: data point map

We used multidimensional scaling (MDS) to create an x–y plot of the categorized

statements (Trochim 1989). In the resultant data point map, each point represents
one statement. Distances between statements correspond to how frequently the
statements were sorted together, where data points closer together were sorted
together more often. A statistic called Kruskal’s stress value indicates how well the
data point map fits the way participants sorted the data (Petrucci and Quinlan 2007).
Kruskal’s stress values vary between 0 and 1, where lower values imply less stress
and better fit; values between 0.205 and 0.365 are acceptable when MDS is applied
to group concept mapping (Kane and Trochim 2007). In this study, we obtained a
Kruskal’s stress value of 0.2777, well within acceptable limits. Figure 1 shows the
educators’ data point map with each statement labelled by number.

3.2 Hierarchical cluster analysis: educators’ cluster map

After creating the data point map, we analyzed the educators’ average grouping
patterns by applying a statistical technique called hierarchical cluster analysis.
Hierarchical cluster analysis examines similarities between the data points and
produces a range of cluster solutions. To identify the best fitting model, we
examined both conceptual fit of the statements within clusters and statistical
bridging values (Kane and Trochim 2007; Nowicki et al. 2014). Statistical bridging
values, calculated using the proprietary software, vary between 0 and 1. A low
bridging value (near 0) means the statement was often sorted with nearby statements
on the map and a high value (near 1) means that participants sorted the statement
with items that were plotted further away on the map (Kane and Trochim 2007).
Overall, clusters with low bridging values reflect statements that were more often
sorted together by participants, and these clusters tend to be more consistent in
conceptual clarity (Jackson and Trochim 2002). For the educators’ map, we
examined a range of cluster models between 4 and 10 clusters, and determined that
the five-cluster map resulted in the simplest model that retained distinct concepts
with acceptable bridging values. In the five-cluster model, clusters contained
between 11 and 28 statements, with average bridging values ranging from 0.19 to
0.72.

123
202 A. Dare et al.

Fig. 1 Educators’ data point map

3.2.1 Cluster labelling

The proprietary software includes algorithms that detect best-match labels for each
cluster from the category names provided by participants. We determined the final
cluster labels by examining the statistically-derived best-match participants’ labels
and their correspondence with the contents of each cluster (Kane and Trochim
2007).

3.3 Concept map summaries

3.3.1 Educators’ concept map

The educators’ concept map shows how educators structured students’ reasons for
engaging in concurrent enrollment; through our analyses, we determined that a five-
cluster model represented the best conceptual and statistical fit with the sorted data.
The five key concepts were (a) Planning Ahead (M bridging value = 0.19,
SD = 0.13, n items = 28), (b) Love Learning (M bridging value =0.31, SD = 0.09,
n items = 19), (c) Challenge (M bridging value = .65, SD = 0.16, n items = 13),
(d) Smart kids! (M bridging value = 0.72, SD = 0.22, n items = 14), and (e) Meet
Intellectual Peers (M bridging value = 0.61, SD = 0.12, n items = 11). Table 1
shows the statements grouped into each concept and their respective bridging values
for both educator and student concept maps.

123
Concurrent enrollment: comparing how educators and… 203

Table 1 Comparison of educators’ and students’ cluster solutions

Educators Students

Cluster name Bridging No. of Cluster name Bridging No. of

value items value items

Planning Ahead 0.19 28 Get Ahead 0.44 8

Love Learning 0.31 19 Prepare for University 0.27 21
Challenge 0.65 13 Love to learn 0.30 21
Smart kids! 0.72 14 Seek challenge 0.56 9
Meet Intellectual Peers 0.61 11 Self-fulfillment 0.73 10
Socializing 0.54 7
Demonstrate initiative 0.54 9

The two most densely clustered concepts in the educators’ map were Planning
Ahead and Love Learning. These two concepts had the lowest bridging values of
0.19 and 0.31 respectively. In other words, the statements in these concepts were
sorted together with the most consistency.

3.3.2 Students’ concept map

A seven cluster model most accurately represented the way students conceptualized
reasons for concurrent enrollment (Dare and Nowicki 2015). Figure 2 shows
educators’ and students’ categorizations of reasons as concept maps.

3.4 Concept map comparison

In group concept mapping, when different groups of participants sort the same set of
statements in dissimilar ways, each group produces a distinct map (Kane and
Trochim 2007). To compare how educators and students categorized reasons for
concurrent enrollment, we conducted both qualitative and quantitative evaluations
of differences between the maps. We describe these evaluations below.

Fig. 2 Educators’ and students’ categorizations of students’ reasons for concurrent enrollment

123
204 A. Dare et al.

3.4.1 Quantitative comparison of maps

MDS allocates coordinates in the data point maps according to how each group
sorted the data. To make quantitative comparisons between the group concept maps,
we assessed the differences among x–y data points in the educators’ and students’
concept maps using least-square orthogonal Procrustes analysis. Procrustes analysis
assesses the fit between two sets of coordinates derived from MDS (Peres-Neto and
Jackson 2001) and can be used in group concept mapping to test the ‘‘correspon-
dence between the structural representations of the two groups’’ (Sjodahl
Hammarlund et al. 2014). The Procrustean distance, m12, is calculated from the
deviations among data points using a sum of squares approach; m12 varies between 0
and 1 where 0 indicates a perfect match (no deviation) and 1 is no match. Our
analysis revealed an m12 value of 0.3462 (p = 0.0001), indicating a degree of
concordance between the way educators and students sorted the data that was
unlikely to have occurred by chance.

3.5 Qualitative comparison of maps

We qualitatively compared educators’ and students’ categorizations by examining

cluster map layouts, bridging values, number of clusters, and cluster contents. Our
examination revealed overarching similarities in the ways educators and students
viewed reasons for concurrent enrollment, with some key differences. Comparing
the overall layout of the two data point maps, the analyses placed statements in
similar locations on both maps. Through the quantitative analysis described above,
we verified that the similarity we observed in statement placement was unlikely to
have occurred by chance.
Looking at the number of clusters in the final analyses, the educators’ map
revealed five key concepts and the students’ map revealed seven. The most similar
concept was around love of learning: educators and students viewed this concept
quite similarly, with educators sorting 19 statements into the concept Love Learning
(bridging value = 0.31), and students sorting 21 statements into their similarly
labelled concept Love to Learn (bridging value = 0.30). We observed greater
differences in the ways educators and students grouped the other statements. For
example, there were differences in the way educators and students sorted statements
relating to planning ahead. Educators conceptualized one category, Planning Ahead
(n items = 28, bridging value = 0.19), but students distinguished two categories,
Prepare for University (n items = 21, bridging value = 0.27) and Get Ahead (n
items = 8, bridging value = 0.44). Further, while educators tended to sort
statements into a single concept Challenge (n items = 13, bridging value = 0.65),
students distinctly conceptualized Seek Challenge (n items = 9, bridging
value = 0.56) and Demonstrate Initiative (n items = 9, bridging value = 0.54).
In general, the contents of the educators’ concept Smart kids! (n items = 14,
bridging value = 0.72), resembled that of the students’ concept Self-fulfillment (n
items = 10, bridging value = 0.73), although there were fewer statements in the
students’ concept. Finally, we compared the educators’ concept Meet Intellectual
Peers (n items = 11, bridging value = 0.61) to the students’ concept Socializing

123
Concurrent enrollment: comparing how educators and… 205

(n items = 7, bridging = 0.54) and found these concepts notionally similar, but
educators grouped more statements together into their concept. Please see the
appendix for a complete list of statements within clusters for both educators’ and
students’ maps.

4 Discussion

In this study, we investigated how educators categorized students’ reasons for

participating in concurrent enrollment, then quantitatively and qualitatively
compared educators’ and students’ concept maps. Parallels between the maps
suggest that educators and students share similar overall views on secondary
students’ motivations to concurrently enroll in university. Both groups
recognized planning ahead, love of learning, seeking challenge, and making
social connections as key concepts. However, the greater number of concepts
in the students’ map suggested that educators in this study may not have been
aware of students’ finer-grained reasons for concurrent enrollment. This
difference in perspective may be explained by the personal relevancy of the
subject matter for students. Student participants had first-hand experience and
were more likely to precisely categorize reasons to participate in concurrent
enrollment.
Students and educators differed in how they categorized planning for the
future, social aspects of concurrent enrollment, and unique or special aspects of
acceleration. For example, where educators conceptualized one category,
Planning Ahead, students explicated two categories, Prepare for University
and Get Ahead. As educators were not making a personal decision to accelerate,
they had an arms-length perspective and may have viewed concurrent
enrollment as one step in a series along an educational pathway. On the other
hand, students may have been more focused on their immediate needs to
prepare for university. Students also distinguished the notion of getting ahead
from planning for university. The statements ‘‘early credit,’’ ‘‘I was attracted to
the idea of a head start on credits,’’ and ‘‘free tuition’’ were clustered into the
students’ concept Get Ahead but were included under the educators’ concept
Planning Ahead.
Educators viewed Meet Intellectual Peers as a broader concept (i.e. the concept
contained more statements and had a higher bridging value) compared to the
students’ concept Socializing. This difference may indicate that educators placed
greater emphasis on social interactions than students did. As an example, on the
educators’ map, the statement ‘‘Opportunities to participate in activities’’ was
clustered under the concept Meet Intellectual Peers, signalling that educators
categorized activities as an opportunity for social interaction. On the students’
map, this statement was clustered under the concept Prepare for University,
suggesting students placed more focus on university preparation than opportunities
to socialize.
Perhaps the greatest difference between the two maps is in the area to the left,
where statements such as, ‘‘It shows you’re smart enough to get in (to the

123
206 A. Dare et al.

program),’’ ‘‘I feel ahead of other people! :)’’ and ‘‘Prestige’’ were plotted. In the
educators’ map, these statements were clustered under a broad concept Smart kids!
In the students’ map, these statements were clustered under the concept Self-
fulfillment. These two clusters, Smart kids! and Self-fulfillment, had the highest
bridging values in each of the maps, suggesting the statements within the clusters
were sorted together with the least consistency by both participant groups. Upon
closer examination, the software labelling algorithm identified the following best-fit
labels among the educator data: ‘‘Smart kids!’’, ‘‘Ego-based (I’m so smart)’’,
‘‘Feeling Ahead’’, ‘‘Elitism’’, and ‘‘Prestige’’. These labels suggest that some
educators may have characterized students’ motivations somewhat unsympatheti-
cally. Understandably, students took a personal view of their reasons for concurrent
enrollment. Best-fit labels among the students’ data included: ‘‘Self-Fulfillment’’,
‘‘Internal Motivation’’, ‘‘Individuality’’, and ‘‘Something for the Resume’’. This
contrast between perspectives suggests that educators may sometimes overlook the
self-determined motivations that secondary students have for participating in
concurrent enrollment.

4.1 Limitations and future research

This study may be limited in generalizability due to relatively small numbers of

participants. However, our sample sizes were sufficient for our chosen methodology
(Kane and Trochim 2007).
Our study was limited to educators’ and high-achieving students’ categorizations
of students’ reasons for concurrent enrollment. Future research could examine and
compare educators’ and parents’ perspectives on reasons for concurrent enrollment.
In addition, future studies could investigate how under-achieving high-ability
students perceive acceleration, and the relationship between accelerative interven-
tions and motivation among this group of students.

4.2 Implications for educational practice

Student-centred educational practice requires acknowledgement of students’

perspectives and motivations. We can help lessen the risk of talent loss by
recognizing high-ability students’ unique motivations to participate in programs
such as concurrent enrolment. Sikora and Saha (2011) assert that ‘‘youth is a
particularly important time to develop and utilise talent. Not only is it during
childhood and youth that unusual talent is identified, but it is also during this period
that talent should be nurtured’’ (p. 11). Our study lends support to the importance of
recognizing and nurturing the unique needs, talents, and motivations of students
with high academic ability.
Our comparison of educators’ and students’ categorizations of reasons for
concurrent enrollment revealed some meaningful implications for educational
practice. In particular, both educators and students categorized preparation for
university as a key concept in choosing concurrent enrollment. Recognizing this
need, secondary teachers can help high achieving students prepare for post-
secondary education in several ways. They can advocate for concurrent enrollment

123
Concurrent enrollment: comparing how educators and… 207

programs, raise awareness about existing opportunities, and inform students about
the benefits of concurrent enrollment.
Another implication stems from the need to understand different perspectives,
and the personal nature of students’ reasons for taking part in concurrent enrollment.
Specifically, the students’ map revealed a category labelled Self-fulfillment and in
the educators’ map, a similar a concept was labelled Smart kids! Recognizing
students’ perspectives, educators could encourage high achieving students to
consider the potential fulfillment they might derive from engaging in concurrent
enrollment.

5 Conclusion

In summary, our study sought to understand how educators and students

categorized students’ reasons for concurrent enrollment through a unique group
concept mapping process. While the overarching categorizations were similar,
some educators may not recognize students’ finer-grained reasons for choosing this
type of acceleration. Existing research suggests that attitudinal barriers among
educators, often due to concerns about socio-emotional outcomes, may limit
students’ access to accelerative options (Rambo and McCoach 2012). Ultimately,
this limitation may lead to talent loss. Our study illustrates that educators and
students may conceptualize the social aspects of acceleration differently. Indeed,
acceleration through concurrent enrollment in university courses can provide
academic challenge within regular classes while simultaneously providing oppor-
tunities to socialize with intellectual peers. In the context of inclusive education, this
combination of increased academic challenge and potential for positive social
interactions provides one way to meet the needs of high-ability students within
inclusive learning environments.

Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge Donald A Jackson for his kind assistance with Procrustes
analysis.

Appendix

See Table 2.

123
208 A. Dare et al.

Table 2 Statements Grouped into Clusters and their Bridging Values

No. Statement Educators Students
Cluster (Bridging value) Cluster (Bridging value)

15 Early university experience Planning ahead (0.00) Prepare for university (0.22)
63 To get a taste of university life Planning ahead (0.03) Prepare for university (0.17)
83 To see the workload Planning ahead (0.04) Prepare for university (0.35)
71 To look at the exams Planning ahead (0.08) Prepare for university (0.12)
24 I wanted to learn more about Planning ahead (0.08) Prepare for university (0.43)
Western
69 To learn what big classes are like Planning ahead (0.08) Prepare for university (0.12)
65 To get used to the university Planning ahead (0.12) Prepare for university (0.15)
atmosphere
7 A chance to experience Planning ahead (0.12) Prepare for university (0.26)
university
60 It will make the transition to Planning ahead (0.12) Prepare for university (0.03)
university easier
73 To look at the lesson structure Planning ahead (0.15) Prepare for university (0.06)
79 To see if I’d like to go into the Planning ahead (0.18) Prepare for university (0.57)
course I took
10 I want to experience the outside, Planning ahead (0.18) Prepare for university (0.25)
unprotected life as compared to
high school
20 I wanted to experience a Planning ahead (0.18) Prepare for university (0.25)
university course
12 I want to experience university Planning ahead (0.19) Prepare for university (0.12)
life before leaving home
18 I wanted to be prepared for next Planning ahead (0.19) Prepare for university (0.24)
year rather than be thrust into
my first year with an
overwhelming course load
67 To learn how to take notes Planning ahead (0.24) Prepare for university (0.40)
44 It helps me see if I want to come Planning ahead (0.34) Prepare for university (0.34)
to Western
57 To be better prepared for Planning ahead (0.34) Prepare for university (0.17)
university
11 Credit Planning ahead (0.09) Get ahead (0.35)
13 Early credit Planning ahead (0.09) Get ahead (0.35)
48 It is one less credit I will need in Planning ahead (0.15) Get ahead (0.34)
my first year of university
75 To lower the load next year Planning ahead (0.19) Get ahead (0.34)
59 To be early in preparing for next Planning ahead (0.22) Get ahead (0.35)
year
30 I was attracted to the idea of a Planning ahead (0.22) Get ahead (0.42)
head start on credits
17 Free tuition Planning ahead (0.58) Get ahead (0.69)
66 My course load this year isn’t Planning ahead (0.20) Seek challenge (0.64)
very heavy

123
Concurrent enrollment: comparing how educators and… 209

Table 2 continued

No. Statement Educators Students

Cluster (Bridging value) Cluster (Bridging value)

81 To see the students Planning ahead (0.54) Socializing (0.58)

54 It may make high school course Planning ahead (0.27) Love to learn (0.69)
easier with new study habits,
work ethic etc.
76 Opportunities to learn Love learning (0.15) Love to learn (0.43)
49 I love learning Love learning (0.21) Love to learn (0.03)
56 It seemed like a good opportunity Love learning (0.22) Love to learn (0.34)
to learn something
84 To see what [WISE] can teach Love learning (0.23) Love to learn (0.36)
me
74 Opportunities to explore new Love learning (0.24) Love to learn (0.59)
subject areas
55 The pursuit of knowledge! Love learning (0.25) Love to learn (0.08)
85 WISE offers courses that my Love learning (0.25) Love to learn (0.48)
High School does not
40 It gave me a chance to learn Love learning (0.27) Love to learn (0.09)
Spanish
32 I’m interested in a particular area Love learning (0.28) Love to learn (0.01)
of study
61 To better expand knowledge Love learning (0.28) Love to learn (0.23)
78 Opportunities to learn Love learning (0.32) Love to learn (0.37)
independently
29 I believe that what I am learning Love learning (0.33) Love to learn (0.01)
is interesting
3 [A chance to study a subject] I Love learning (0.33) Love to learn (0.31)
have wanted to do for a very
long time
14 I want to study [a particular Love learning (0.35) Love to learn (0.08)
subject] in depth
25 I am very interested in [WISE Love learning (0.35) Love to learn (0.00)
course]
2 I love to try new things Love learning (0.40) Love to learn (0.56)
8 I want to be a lifelong learner Love learning (0.57) Love to learn (0.03)
31 I can apply the subject matter Challenge (0.39) Love to learn (0.49)
from my WISE course to the
studies I am currently enrolled
in on a secondary level
53 The course I am taking is a part Love learning (0.36) Self-Fulfillment (1.00)
of one of the programs I am
interested in pursuing after
graduation
35 I don’t think I will have much Love learning (0.42) Demonstrate initiative (0.65)
room over the next few years
for a course such as this

123
210 A. Dare et al.

Table 2 continued

No. Statement Educators Students

Cluster (Bridging value) Cluster (Bridging value)

50 It is teaching me stronger work Challenge (0.43) Prepare for university (0.51)

habits
22 I wanted to learn how to manage Challenge (0.76) Prepare for university (0.40)
time in university
47 I like getting ahead in academics Challenge (0.43) Demonstrate initiative (0.54)
28 I wanted to take advantage of the Challenge (0.57) Demonstrate initiative (0.52)
opportunity
33 I decided to take the initiative Challenge (0.81) Demonstrate initiative (0.58)
70 No available advancement in Challenge (0.83) Demonstrate initiative (0.51)
high school
37 I exhausted all other enrichment Challenge (0.48) Seek challenge (0.73)
opportunities at high school
16 I wanted a bit of a challenge in Challenge (0.62) Seek challenge (0.38)
my life that included obstacles
that I needed to overcome
1 I wish to challenge myself by Challenge (0.76) Seek challenge (0.41)
extending my ability to my full
potential
6 I thought I could take on the Challenge (0.80) Seek challenge (0.38)
challenge
72 On the whole, university courses Challenge (0.73) Love to learn (0.56)
are more substantial than high-
school courses
5 [An opportunity to] master the Challenge (0.81) Love to learn (0.50)
task of problem solving
58 It shows you’re smart enough to Smart kids! (0.35) Self-Fulfillment (0.61)
get in (to the program)
4 I really love the look on people’s Smart kids! (0.41) Self-Fulfillment (0.50)
faces when they say ‘‘You’re in
grade eleven?!?!’’
39 I feel ahead of other people! :) Smart kids! (0.45) Self-Fulfillment (0.63)
51 Prestige Smart kids! (0.50) Self-Fulfillment (0.49)
41 I felt honoured to be selected Smart kids! (0.53) Self-Fulfillment (0.80)
45 I like be part of special things Smart kids! (0.82) Self-Fulfillment (0.98)
43 I fit the requirements Smart kids! (0.90) Self-Fulfillment (0.90)
36 It demonstrates motivation to go Smart kids! (1.00) Self-Fulfillment (0.63)
extra mile
52 It looks attractive on resume Smart kids! (0.71) Demonstrate initiative (0.52)
27 It looks attractive on university Smart kids! (0.71) Demonstrate initiative (0.50)
application
38 It demonstrates time Smart kids! (1.00) Demonstrate initiative (0.55)
management skills
23 I am intellectually gifted Smart kids! (0.81) Seek challenge (0.80)
34 It became a goal to get in to the Smart kids! (0.92) Seek challenge (0.55)
program

123
Concurrent enrollment: comparing how educators and… 211

Table 2 continued

No. Statement Educators Students

Cluster (Bridging value) Cluster (Bridging value)

19 High school is too easy Smart kids! (0.98) Seek challenge (0.54)
26 I wanted to network with people Meet intellectual Peers (0.45) Socializing (0.55)
that I may be working with in
the future, outside of high
school walls
68 Networking Meet intellectual Peers (0.47) Socializing (0.50)
62 It’s always nice to meet other Meet intellectual Peers (0.54) Socializing (0.62)
high achievers
64 It’s cool to be sitting in a room Meet intellectual Peers (0.58) Socializing (0.51)
with others who think like you
77 To meet people Meet intellectual Peers (0.60) Socializing (0.52)
80 Opportunities to make new Meet intellectual Peers (0.64) Socializing (0.51)
friends
82 To see what doors open Meet intellectual Peers (0.62) Self-Fulfillment (0.77)
9 An opportunity to talk to people Meet intellectual Peers (0.69) Get ahead (0.70)
and go places
46 Opportunities to participate in Meet intellectual Peers (0.74) Prepare for university (0.50)
activities
42 It gave me a good reason to be Meet intellectual Peers (0.88) Seek challenge (0.66)
active and to be always on the
go
21 I am hoping it will help me get Meet intellectual Peers (0.53) Demonstrate initiative (0.52)
scholarships

References
Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps
the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin &
Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University
of Iowa.
Blaas, S. (2014). The relationship between social-emotional difficulties and underachievement of gifted
students. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24(2), 243–255. doi:10.1017/jgc.2014.1.
Cantinotti, M., Ladouceur, R., & Jacques, C. (2009). Lay and scientific conceptualizations of impaired
control at electronic gambling machines. Addiction Research & Theory, 17(6), 650–667. doi:10.
3109/16066350802290623.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back
America’s brightest students (Vol. 2). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank
International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa.
Dare, L., & Nowicki, E. A. (2015). Conceptualizing concurrent enrollment: Why high-achieving students
go for it. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 249–264. doi:10.1177/0016986215597749.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1982). Meeting the needs of gifted students through differentiated programming. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 26(1), 3741.
Gallagher, S., Smith, S. R., & Merrotsy, P. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of the socioemotional
development of intellectually gifted primary aged students and their attitudes towards ability
grouping and acceleration. Gifted and Talented International, 26(1), 11–24.
Jackson, K. M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the
analysis of open-ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 307–336. doi:10.
1177/109442802237114.

123
212 A. Dare et al.

Kane, M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kanevsky, L. (2011). Deferential differentiation: What types of differentiation do students want? Gifted
Child Quarterly, 55(4), 279–299. doi:10.1177/0016986211422098.
Kanevsky, L., & Clelland, D. (2013). Accelerating gifted students in canada: Policies and possibilities.
Canadian Journal of Education, 3(2013), 229–271.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2004). Acceleration [position paper]. Washington, DC.
Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org.
Nowicki, E. A. (2012). Intergroup evaluations and norms about learning ability. Social Development,
21(1), 130–149. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00614.x.
Nowicki, E. A., Brown, J., & Stepien, M. (2014). Children’s structured conceptualizations of their beliefs
on the causes of learning difficulties. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8, 69–82. doi:10.1177/
1558689813490834.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2014). Equity and inclusive education in ontario schools: Guidelines for
policy development and implementation. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/
policyfunding/inclusiveguide.pdf.
Peres-Neto, P., & Jackson, D. A. (2001). How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a
procrustean superimposition approach over the mantel test. Oecologia, 129, 169–178. doi:10.1007/
s004420100720.
Petrucci, C. J., & Quinlan, K. M. (2007). Bridging the research-practice gap: Concept mapping as a
mixed-methods strategy in practice-based research and evaluation. Journal of Social Service
Research, 34(2), 25–42. doi:10.1300/J079v34n02.
Rambo, K. E., & McCoach, D. B. (2012). Teacher attitudes toward subject-specific acceleration:
Instrument development and validation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(2), 129–152.
doi:10.1177/0162353212440591.
Renaud-Dubé, A., Guay, F., Talbot, D., Taylor, G., & Koestner, R. (2015). The relations between implicit
intelligence beliefs, autonomous academic motivation, and school persistence intentions: A
mediation model. Social Psychology of Education, 18(2), 255–272. doi:10.1007/s11218-014-9288-
0.
Rush, S. C., & Wheeler, J. (2011). Ascertaining disabling perceptions using perceptual mapping:
Applications to teachers’ perceptions of adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Disability and Society, 26(6), 743–756. doi:10.1080/09687599.2011.602866.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
Saha, L., & Sikora, J. (2011). Inequality and talent loss: recent evidence from australia. An International
Journal of Contemporary Sociology A Discussion Journal of Contemporary Ideas and Research,
48(1), 9–34.
Sikora, J., & Saha, L. (2011). The concept of ‘‘talent loss’’ in educational theory and research.
Educational Practice and Theory, 33(2), 5–22.
Sjodahl Hammarlund, C. S., Nilsson, M. H., Idvall, M., Rosas, S. R., & Hagell, P. (2014).
Conceptualizing and prioritizing clinical trial outcomes from the perspectives of people with
parkinson’s disease versus health care professionals: A concept mapping study. Quality of Life
Research, 23(6), 1687–1700. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0614-3.
Specht, J. A. (2013). Mental health in schools: Lessons learned from exclusion. Canadian Journal of
School Psychology, 28(1), 43–55. doi:10.1177/0829573512468857.
Stanley, J. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t already know. Psychology Public
Policy and Law, 6, 216–222.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Moon, S. M. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability learners: A meta-
analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 39–53. doi:10.1177/0016986210383155.
Taylor, J. L. (2015). Accelerating pathways to college: The (in) equitable effects of community college
dual credit. Community College Review, 43(4), 355–379. doi:10.1177/0091552115594880.
Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and
Program Planning, 12, 1–16.
Winzer, M. A. (2002). Children with exceptionalities in canadian classrooms (6th ed.). Toronto, ON:
Prentice Hall.
Wolf, J. S., & Geiger, J. (1986). Concurrent enrollment: A program to foster educational excellence. The
High School Journal, 69(3), 218–221.

123
Concurrent enrollment: comparing how educators and… 213

Wood, S., Portman, T. A. A., Cigrand, D. L., & Colangelo, N. (2010). School counselors’ perceptions and
experience with acceleration as a program option for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 54(3), 168–178. doi:10.1177/0016986210367940.

Alec Dare is currently a graduate student in the Research Analyst Program at Georgian College,Ontario,
where he is studying research design, methods, and data analysis. He earned his honoursundergraduate
degree in social psychology from McMaster University, Ontario. His researchinterests include social
aspects of schooling in secondary and post-secondary education with afocus on norms and perceptions in
initial encounters.

Lynn Dare is a doctoral candidate in applied educational psychology at Western University, Ontario.
Lynn’s doctoral work has been recognized by the National Association for Gifted Children through a
Doctoral Student Award (2016). Her research focuses on inclusion in education and acceleration for high-
ability students.

Elizabeth Nowicki is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Education at Western Universityand is a

member of the Ontario College of Teachers. She has a doctorate in psychology and amaster’s degree in
educational studies. Elizabeth’s research interests are drawn from educational,developmental, and social
psychology. Current research focuses on children’s understanding ofsocial interactions at school, the
social inclusion of students with exceptionalities, and implicitbeliefs about gender stereotypes and
achievement.

123
Social Psychology of Education is a copyright of Springer, 2017. All Rights Reserved.