Accelerative strategies offer gifted students the opportunity to participate in educational programs suited to their particular needs and interests. Yet, fear of possible negative effects of acceleration prevents many educators from advocating these options. The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) has evaluated the long-term effects of a variety of accelerative options for a group of highly gifted students. Academic achievements, extracurricular activities, goals and aspirations, and social and emotional adjustment were considered, and no discernible negative effects of various accelerative strategies were found.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Astin, A.W., & Henson, J.W. (1977). New measures of college selectivity. Research in Higher Education, 6, 1-9.
2.
Cattell, R.B., & Butcher, H.J. (1968). The prediction of achievement and creativity. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
3.
Conger, A.J., Peng, S.S., & Dunteman, G.H. (1976). National longitudinal study of the high school class of 1972: Group profiles on self-esteem, locus of control, and life goals. Research Triangle Park, NC : Research Triangle Institute.
4.
Daurio, S.P. (1979). Educational enrichment versus acceleration: A review of the literature. In W.C. George, S.J.Cohn, & J.C. Stanley (eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment . Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 13-63.
5.
Fund for the Advancement of Education. (1979 ). A summing up. In W.C. George , S.J. Cohn, & J.C. Stanley (eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 138-161. (reprinted from They went to college early. Evaluation Report No. 2, Fund for the Advancement of Education, Ford Foundation, New York , April 1957).
6.
Gough, H.G., & Heilbrun, A.B. (1980). The adjective checklist manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
7.
Hobson, J.R. (1963). High school performance of underage pupils initially admitted to kindergarten on the basis of physical and psychological examinations . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23 (1), 159-170.
8.
Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students . Review of Educational Research, 54, 409-425.
9.
Peng, S.S., Fetters, W.B., & Kolstad, A.J. (1981). High school and beyond. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
10.
Pollins, L.M. (1983). The effects of acceleration on the social and emotional development of gifted students. In C.P. Benbow & J.C. Stanley (eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
11.
Pressey, S.L. (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisal and basic problems. Bureau of Educational Research Monographs, No. 31. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
12.
Robinson, H.B. (1983). A case for radical acceleration: Programs of theJohns Hopkins University and the University of Washignton. In C.P. Benbow & J.C. Stanley (eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
13.
Stanley, J.C. (1978). Educational non-acceleration: An international tragedy. G/C/T, May-June, Issue No. 3, 2-5, 53-57, 60-64.
14.
Stanley, J.C. (1985a). Young entrants to college: How did they fare?College and University, 60 (3, Spring), 219-227.
15.
Stanley, J.C. (1985b). How did six highly accelerated gifted students fare in graduate school?Gifted Child Quarterly, 29 (4, Fall), 180.
Stanley, J.C., & Benbow, C.P. (1983a). Intellectually talented students: The key is curricular flexibility. In S. Paris, G. Olson, & H. Stevenson (eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 259-281.
18.
Stanley, J.C., & Benbow, C.P. (1983b). Extremely young college graduates: evidence of their success. College and University, 58 (4, Summer), 361-371.
19.
Stanley, J.C. & McGill, A.M. (1986). More about "young entrants to college: How did they fare?" Gifted Child Quarterly, 30 (2, Spring), 70-73.
