This study investigated student perceptions of differences in academic and social effects that occur when gifted and talented youth are grouped homogeneously (i.e., in special classes for gifted students) as contrasted with heterogeneously (i.e., in classes with many ability levels represented). Forty-four students in grades 5-11 completed interviews or questionnaires while attending a summer residential program for gifted and talented students. Questions were designed to clarify the nature of academic and social outcomes under the two grouping conditions. On the whole, the participants perceived homogenous grouping more positively with respect to academic outcomes. They learned more in the more challenging environment provided by homogeneous classes. However, they had mixed feelings about which setting better met their social needs. Participants seemed to value having both similar peers in homogenous classes and the social diversity of heterogeneous classes. A troubling finding that emerged was the preference of a few of the students for heterogeneous classes because they were easier and enabled them to attain a high class ranking with little work. Implications of the findings for educators and counselors of gifted students are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
2.
Baker, J. A., Bridger, R., & Evans, K. (1998). Models of under-achievement among gifted preadolescents: The role of personal, family, and school factors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 5-15.
3.
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How “equity” can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 2, 249-292.
4.
Bland, L. C., Sowa, C. J., & Callahan, C. M. (1994). An overview of resilience in gifted children. Roeper Review, 17, 77-80.
5.
Clasen, D. R., & Clasen, R. E., (1995). Underachievement of highly able students and the peer society. Gifted and Talented International, 10, 67-76.
6.
Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1991). Unfair expectations: A pilot study of middle school students’ comparisons of gifted and regular classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 56-63.
7.
Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M. (1991). The social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 44-55.
8.
Delcourt, M. A. B., & Evans, K. (1994, November). Qualitative extension of the learning outcomes study. Charlottesville: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Virginia.
9.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
10.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership, 46, 6-11.
11.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students: Issues and concerns. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65, 63-67.
12.
Gross, M. U. M. (1989). The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11, 189-194.
13.
Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London: Routledge.
14.
Kerr, B. A. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women. Columbus: Ohio Psychology Press.
15.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equity & Excellence, 23, 22-30.
16.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1997). Ability grouping. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 230-242). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
17.
Lawton, M. (1992, February 5). Gifted elementary students languishing in regular classrooms, studies suggest. Education Week, 11(20), 4-4.
18.
Moon, S. M., Kelly, K. R., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Specialized counseling services for gifted youth and their families: A needs assessment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 16-25.
19.
Moon, S. M., Nelson, T. S., & Piercy, F. P. (1993). Family therapy with a highly gifted adolescent. Journal of Family Psychology, 4(3), 1-16.
20.
Moon, S. M., & Rosselli, H. C. (2000). Developing gifted programs. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed., pp. 499-521). New York: Pergamon Press.
21.
Moon, S. M., Swift, M., & Shallenberger, A. (2002). Perceptions of a self-contained class of fourth- and fifth-grade students with high to extreme levels of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 64-79.
22.
Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know?Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
23.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track. New Haven: Yale University Press.
24.
Oakes, J. (1992, May). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political considerations. Educational Researcher, 12-21.
25.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
27.
Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9-27.
28.
Robinson, N. M., & Noble, K. D. (1991). Social-emotional development and adjustment of gifted children. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice. Vol. 4: Emerging programs (pp.57-76). New York: Pergamon Press.
29.
Rogers, K. B. (1991). Relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learners. Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
30.
Sayler, M. F., & Brookshire, W. K. (1993). Social, emotional, and behavioral adjustment of accelerated students, students in gifted classes, and regular students in eighth grade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 150-154.
31.
Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 52, 149-174.
32.
Silverman, L. K. (1993). Social development, leadership, and gender issues. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 291-327). Denver: Love.
33.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Grouping for instruction: Equity and effectiveness. Equity & Excellence, 23, 31-36.
34.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-499.
35.
Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom. New York: Simon & Schuster.
36.
Tomlinson, C. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
