To Group or Not to Group Academically Talented or Gifted Students?

Abstract

This article identifies administrative implications of the findings from the first year of a longitudinal study that compares the performance and attitudes of academically talented or gifted fifth grade students in homogeneous classes with gifted students in heterogeneous classes. Data regarding school-level differences and teachers' instructional strategies provide contextual information. At the beginning of the fifth grade, no statistically significant differences were found on student attitudes and perceptions measured by the Educational Process Questionnaire. By the end of the year, five statistically significant differences were found-all in favor of the homogeneously grouped students: academic self-concept, independent development, self-acceptance, perceptions of the degree to which teachers reinforce student self-concept, and peer relations. Student interview data supported these findings and suggested additional differences in understanding intelligence, reading, cognition, and metacognition.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker, D. P. , & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mothers' strategies for children's school achievement: Managing the transition to high school.Sociology of Education, 59, 156-166.

David, J. , & Shields, P. (1991). From effective schools to restructuring: A literature review. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Feldhusen, J. F. , & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students: Issues and concerns.Gifted Child Quarterly. 36(2), 63-67.

Fetterman, D. M. (1988). Excellence and equality. New York: SUNY.

Gallagher, J. J. (1966). Research summary on gifted education. Springfield, IL: State Department of Public Administration.

Gallagher, J. J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gamoran, A. (1987). Organization, instruction, and the effects of ability grouping: Comment on Slavin's "best-evidence synthesis." Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 341-345.

Gamoran, A. , & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research.Review of Educational Research S7(4), 415-435.

Gamoran, A. , & Mare, R. D. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality? American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1146-1183.

10.

Gardner, J. (1961). Excellence: Can we be excellent and equal too? New York: Harper & Row.

11.

Hastings, C. (1992). Ending ability grouping is a moral imperative.Educational Leadership, 50(2), 14.

12.

Hiebert, E. H. (1987). The context of instruction and student learning: An examination of Slavin's assumption.Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 337-340.

13.

Hollingworth, T. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. New York: World Book.

14.

Jacobs, J. C. (1972). Teacher attitude toward gifted children.Gifted Child Quarterly, 16, 23-26.

15.

Kulik, C. L. , & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings.American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 415-428.

16.

Kulik, J. A. , & Kulik, C. L. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement.Equity and Excellence, 23(1-2), 22-30.

17.

Lee, V. E. , & Bryck, A. S. (1988). Curriculum tracking as mediating the social distribution of high school achievement.Sociology of Education, 62, 78-94.

18.

Marshall, H. H. (1992). Reconceptualizing learning for restructured schools.Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

19.

Murphy, J. (1992). School effectiveness and school restructuring: Contributions to educational improvement.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 3(2), 90-109.

20.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

21.

Oakes, J. , & Lipton, M. (1990). Making the best of schools: A handbook for parents, teachers, and policy makers. Albany: State University of New York.

22.

Rosenbaum, J. E. (1980). Social implications of educational grouping.Review of Research in Education, 50(3), 361-401.

23.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany: SUNY Press.

24.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1993). Organizations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory.An invited address to Division A, American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Atlanta.

25.

Shields, C. M. (1995). A comparison study of student outcomes in two types of classroom placement.The Roeper Review, 17(4), 234-238.

26.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis.Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.

27.

Slavin, R. E. (1992). The nongraded elementary school: Great potential but keep it simple.Educational Leadership, 50(2), 24.

28.

de Tocqueville, A. (1945). Democracy in America (H. Reeve, Trans.). New York: Colonial. (Original work published in 1899)