Gifted and talented students need instruction at a level and pace as well as conceptual complexity commensurate with their advanced levels of ability and achievement. Grouping heterogeneously and providing cooperative learning in heterogeneous groups leads to lowered achievement and motivation as well as poorer attitudes toward school. Academic achievement of American youth is lower than the achievement of youth in many Asian and European countries. If we wish to sustain or increase the academic achievement of American youth they should be grouped for instruction according to ability and achievement levels, but grouping practices should be flexible, and rigid tracking should be avoided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, S.D. (1991). Ability-grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping and the gifted?Educational Leadership , 48(6), 60-65.
2.
Brown, B.B., & Steinberg, L. (1989). How bright students save face among peers. Newsletter, National Center for Effective Secondary Schools, 4(2), 2-8.
3.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Achieving our goals: Superficial or structural reforms. Phi Delta Kappan,72(4), 286-295.
4.
Gallagher, J.J. (1966). [Research summary]. Report to Illinois Superintendent of Public Instruction.
5.
Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school leaming opportunities . Sociology of Education, 60, 135-155.
6.
Gamoran, A. (1990). How tracking affects achievement, research and recommendations. Newsletter, National Center for Effective Secondary Schools, 5(1), 2-6.
7.
Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 415-435.
8.
Gamoran, A., & Nystrand, M. (1990). Tracking, instruction, and achievement. Paper presented at the World Congress of Sociology, Madrid, Spain.
9.
Jacobson, W.J., Takemura, S., Doran, R.L., Humrich, E., Kojima, S., & Miyake, M. (1986). Analyses and comparisons of science curricula in Japan and the United States. New York: Second IEA Science Study— U.S., Teachers College, Columbia University .
10.
Kulik, C.C., & Kulik, J.A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415-428.
11.
Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement . Equity and Excellence, 23, 22-30.
12.
Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (1990). Ability grouping and gifted students. In N. Colangelo and G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 178-196). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
13.
Miller, J. (1986). An analysis of science curricula in the United States. New York: Second IEA Science Study—U.S., Teachers College, Columbia University.
14.
Moon, S.M. (1991). The PACE program: A high school follow-up study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
15.
Moon, S.M., & Feldhusen, J.F. (in press). A follow-up study of an enrichment program for gifted youth based on the Purdue Three-Stage Model. In K. Amold & R. Subotnik (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Longitudinal studies in contemporary gifted education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
16.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. ( 1988). The mathematics report card, are we measuring up? Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
17.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. ( 1990a). The reading report card, 1971-1988. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
18.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. ( 1990b).The writing report card, 1984-1988. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
19.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track, how schools structure inequality . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20.
Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities, the effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science . Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.
21.
Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative leaming for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(1), 9-27.
22.
Rogers, K.B. (in press). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers . Roeper Review.
23.
Rosier, M. (1987). The Second International Science Study. Comparative Education Review, 31(1), 106-128.
24.
Sederburg, W.A., & Rudman, H.C. (1986). Educational reform and declining test scores. MichiganSchool Board Journal, 30, 8-10, 24.
25.
Slavin, R.E. (1990a). Ability grouping, cooperative leaming, and the gifted. Journal for. the Education of the Gifted, 14(1), 3-8.
26.
Slavin, R.E. (1990b). Response to Robinson: Cooperative leaming and the gifted: Who benefits? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(1), 28-30.
27.
Slavin, R.E. (1990c). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471-499.
28.
Snow, R.E. (1989). Aptitude treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in leaming. In P. L. Ackerman, R. J. Stemberg, & R. Glaser (Eds.) Learningand individual differences (pp. 13-59). New York: W. H. Freeman.
29.
Vaughn, V.L., Feldhusen, J.F., & Asher, J.W. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(2), 92-105.
