Levels of Service
Developed by:
Donald Treffinger and Edwin Selby
Theoretical Underpinnings:
--the expansion of the concept of intelligence and talent, influenced by Guilford, Taylor, Sternberg, Gardner, Amabile, Torrance,
Piaget, and Bruner.
--use of instructional design, individualization, and differentiation, influenced by Tomlinson,
Cramond, Taylor, Torrance, Treffinger, and Feldhusen.
--Style-based instruction, influenced by Dunn and Price, Selby, Treffinger, Isaksen, and Lauer
--Productive thinking, influenced by Isaksen, Dorval, and Treffinger
--Personal and affective factors, influenced by Moon, Neihart, Reis, Robinson
--Environmental and contextual factors, influenced by Isaksen, Treffinger, and Dorval
--Autonomy and self-direction, influenced by Gross, Treffinger, Betts and Kercher
--talent development, influenced by Kaplan, Renzulli, Purdue Model, and NAGC Parallel Curriculum
--school improvement, influenced by Smith, Champlin, Davis and Thomas, Patterson, Purkey,and Parker
Brief description of the model and/or its philosophy:
The model seeks to take the best elements of other gifted programs and create a model that allows for a wide range of creative
activity and talent development. There are four levels of service, from all students to a select few.
Key elements,components, and/or non-negotiables:
LoS serves all students at all levels. Outside experts are brought in to teach at higher levels of service. The four levels are integrated
into the school’s total program. The atmosphere must accommodate a level of uncertainty and play.
Intended applicationsfor the model (enrichment, pull-out, whole school,classroom, etc.):
Total school integration
Intended Audiences:
K-12
Relative strength and weaknesses:
Strengths:
The model is comprehensive and can be used in many different school situations.
It takes a holistic view of children’s learning and has strong goals for student self- motivation and independent learning.
Weaknesses:
The model is time intensive, difficult to assess and assumes total-school buy-in as well as a wealth of resources.
Resources required:
Need outside experts for level 4 enrichment, need teacher training and an outside consultant from time to time
Need time/money to assess each child’s strengths and subject interests
Donald Treffinger and Edwin Selby
Theoretical Underpinnings:
--the expansion of the concept of intelligence and talent, influenced by Guilford, Taylor, Sternberg, Gardner, Amabile, Torrance,
Piaget, and Bruner.
--use of instructional design, individualization, and differentiation, influenced by Tomlinson,
Cramond, Taylor, Torrance, Treffinger, and Feldhusen.
--Style-based instruction, influenced by Dunn and Price, Selby, Treffinger, Isaksen, and Lauer
--Productive thinking, influenced by Isaksen, Dorval, and Treffinger
--Personal and affective factors, influenced by Moon, Neihart, Reis, Robinson
--Environmental and contextual factors, influenced by Isaksen, Treffinger, and Dorval
--Autonomy and self-direction, influenced by Gross, Treffinger, Betts and Kercher
--talent development, influenced by Kaplan, Renzulli, Purdue Model, and NAGC Parallel Curriculum
--school improvement, influenced by Smith, Champlin, Davis and Thomas, Patterson, Purkey,and Parker
Brief description of the model and/or its philosophy:
The model seeks to take the best elements of other gifted programs and create a model that allows for a wide range of creative
activity and talent development. There are four levels of service, from all students to a select few.
Key elements,components, and/or non-negotiables:
LoS serves all students at all levels. Outside experts are brought in to teach at higher levels of service. The four levels are integrated
into the school’s total program. The atmosphere must accommodate a level of uncertainty and play.
Intended applicationsfor the model (enrichment, pull-out, whole school,classroom, etc.):
Total school integration
Intended Audiences:
K-12
Relative strength and weaknesses:
Strengths:
The model is comprehensive and can be used in many different school situations.
It takes a holistic view of children’s learning and has strong goals for student self- motivation and independent learning.
Weaknesses:
The model is time intensive, difficult to assess and assumes total-school buy-in as well as a wealth of resources.
Resources required:
Need outside experts for level 4 enrichment, need teacher training and an outside consultant from time to time
Need time/money to assess each child’s strengths and subject interests