The purpose of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of pull-out programs in gifted education. Nine experimental studies were located that dealt with pull-out programs for gifted students. The variables of self-concept, achievement, critical thinking, and creativity were quantified via meta-analysis. The results indicate that pull-out models in gifted education have significant positive effects for the variables of achievement, critical thinking, and creativity. However, gifted students' self-concepts were not affected by the pull-out programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldrich, P.W., & Mills, C.J. (1989). A special program for highly able rural youth in grades 5 and 6. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 11-14.
2.
Asher, J.W. (1976). Educational research and evaluation methods. Boston: Little, Brown.
3.
Asher, J.W. (1986). Conducting research with meta-analysis: A new direction in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(1), 7-9.
4.
Asher, J.W. (in press). Meta-analysis. G/T handbook on research and eualuation methodsNew York: Teachers College Press.
5.
Bachtold, L.M. (1974). Effects of learning environment on verbal creativity of gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 11, 226-228.
6.
Beckwith, A. (1982). Use of the Ross Test as an assessment measure in programs for the gifted and a comparison study of the Ross Test to individually administered intelligence tests. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 5(2), 127-140.
7.
Belcastro, F.P. (1987). Elementary pull-out program for the intellectually gifted—Boon or bane?Roeper Review, 9(4), 208-212.
8.
Carter, K. (1986). A cognitive outcome study to evaluate curriculum for the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9(1), 41-55.
9.
Carter, K., & Kuechenmeister, N. (1986). Evaluating the consequences of participating in a gifted pull-out program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9(4), 265-275.
10.
Clark, B. (1988). Growing up gifted. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
11.
Coleman, J.M., & Fults. B.A. (1982). Self-concept and the gifted classroom: The role of social comparisons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(3), 116-119.
12.
Cox. J., Daniel. N., & Boston. B.O. (1985). Educating able learners. Austin, TX: University Press.
13.
Davis, B.I. (1983). A comparative analysis of enrichment program participation and academic achievement of intellectually superior students. Dissertation Abstracts. 8316179.
14.
Davis, G., & Rimm. S. (1985) Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15.
Delaney, B.O. (1978). A comparative study of the achievement of gifted first-grade SPARK students with other gifted first-grade students. Dissertation Abstracts, 7730812.
16.
Ebmeier, H., Dyche, B., Taylor, P., & Hall, M. (1985). An empirical comparison of two program models for elementary gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(1), 15-19.
17.
Feldhusen, J. (1985). Toward excellence in gifted education. Denver: Love. Feldhusen, J.F. (1989). Why the public schools will continue to neglect the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 12(2), 55-59.
18.
Feldhusen, J.F., & Clinkenbeard, P.R. (1986). Creativity instruction materials: A review of research. The Journal of Creative Behauior , 20(3), 153-181.
19.
Feldhusen, J.F., & Kolloff, M.B. (1981). ME: A self-concept scale for gifted students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 319-323.
20.
Feldhusen, J.F., Proctor, T.B., & Black, K.N. (1988). Guidelines for grade advancement of precocious children. Roeper Review, 9(1), 25-27.
21.
Gallagher, J., Weiss, P., Oglesby, K., & Thomas, T. (1983). The status of gifted and talented education: United States survey of needs, practices, and policies. Los Angeles : Leadership Training Institute.
22.
Glass, G.V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M.L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
Goldring, E.B. (1987). A meta-analysis of classroom organizational strategies for gifted education programs. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
24.
Hedges, L. (1986). Issues in meta-analysis In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of research in education, Vol. 13 (pp. 353-398). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association .
25.
Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
26.
Humes, C.W., & Campbell, R. (1980). Gifted students: A 15-year longitudinal study . Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(3), 129-131.
27.
Karnes, A.F., & Wherry, J.N. (1981). Self-concepts of gifted students as measured by The Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale. Psycho logical Reports, 49, 903-906.
28.
Kolloff, M.B. (1983) The effects of an enrichment program on the self concepts and creative thinking abilities of gifted and creative elementary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University , West Lafayette, IN.
29.
Kolloff, P.B. (1989, October). A comparison of self-contained and pull-out models. Paper presented at National Association for Gifted Children Annual Convention, Cincinnati, OH.
30.
Kolloff, M.B., & Feldhusen, J.F. (1981). PACE (Program for Academic and Creative Enrichment): An application of the three-stage model. GiftedChild Today, 18, 47-50.
31.
Kolloff, P.B., & Feldhusen, J.F. (1984). The effects of enrichment on self-concept and creative thinking. Gifted Child Quarterly , 28, 53-57.
32.
Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 415-428.
33.
Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. (1984, August). Effects of ability grouping on elementary pupils: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, Toronto , Ontario, Canada.
34.
Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (1984). Synthesis of research on effects of accelerated instruction. Educational Leadership, 42, 84-89.
35.
Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement . Equity and Excellence, 23(1-2), 22-23.
36.
Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (in press). Ability grouping and gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 178-196). New York: Pergamon Press.
LeRose, B. (1977). The lighthouse design: A model for educating children . Unpublished manuscript, Racine United School District , Racine, WI.
39.
LeRose, B. (1986). The lighthouse program: A longitudinal research project. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9(3), 225-232.
40.
Maddux, C.D., Scheicher, L., & Bass, J. (1982). Self-concept and social distance in gifted children . Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(2), 77-81.
41.
Martin, J.L. (1982). A study of the effect of participation in enrichment programs on the reading interests of third, fourth, and fifth-grade gifted and talented students. Dissertation Abstracts, 8316179.
42.
McQuilkin, G.E. (1981). A comparison of personal and social concepts of gifted elementary students in different school programs. Dissertation Ab stracts, 8100704.
43.
Nielsen, M.E. (1984). Evaluation of a rural gifted program: Assessment of attitudes, self-concepts, and critical thinking skills of high ability students in grades 3 through 12. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
44.
Reis. S.M., & Renzulli, J.S. (1982). A case for a broadened conception of giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 619-620.
45.
Renzulli, J. (1972). An evaluation of project gifted 1971-72. Washington, DC: Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education. (ERIC Document 093 135).
46.
Renzulli, J.S. (1975). A guidebook for evaluating programs for the gifted and talented. University of Connecticut: Bureau of Educational Research.
47.
Renzulli. J. (1987). The positive side of pull-out programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(4), 245-253.
48.
Renzulli, J.S., & Reis, S.M. (1985). The schootwide enrichment model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
49.
Renzulli, J.S., Reis, S.M., & Smith, L.H. (1981). Reuolving door identification model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
50.
Rose, L.H., & Lin, H. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18(1), 11-22.
51.
Ross. J., & Ross, C. (1976). Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes ManualLos Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
52.
Skaught, B.J. (1987). The social acceptability of talent pool students in an elementary school using the Schoolwide Enrichment Model. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Technical report of research studies related to the reuolving door identification model (pp. 175-201). Storrs, CT: Research Report Series, School of Education, University of Connecticut.
53.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1987). The ineffectiveness of the pull-out model in gifted education: A minority perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 10(4), 255-264.
54.
Wilson, J. (1959). Some results of an enrichment program for gifted ninth graders. Journal of Educational Research, 53(4), 157-160.
