This paper presents the findings of a longitudinal, causal comparative investigation of an elementary school cluster grouping program. Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used. Although the cluster grouping program was originally designed to provide differentiation of content and instruction for gited students, positive effects were also found on the achievement of all students in the school. During the three program years, students involved in the school using cluster grouping were more likely to be identified as high achieving or above average. Fewer students were identified as low achieving. A significant increase in achievement test scores of all students was found when these students were compared to similar students from a comparison school district. Qualitative analyses yielded three core categories—the use of grouping, the impact of teachers, and the general school environment—that helped to provide an understanding of the quantitative findings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Airasian, P. W. (1989). Review of the Calfornia Achievement Tests, Forms E and F. In J. C. Conoley & J. J. Kramer (Eds.), The Tenth Mental Measurements Yearbook (pp. 126-128). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.
2.
Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K., Brown, S. B., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
3.
Balzer, C., & Siewert, B. (Eds.). (1990). Program and service models: Suggested programs and services for identified talented and gifted students, K-12. (Technical assistance paper 3, Revised.). Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education.
4.
Barcikowski, R. S. (1981). Statistical power with group mean as the unit of analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 267-285.
5.
Brown, S. B., Archambault, F. X., Zhang, W., Westberg, K. (1994, April). The impact of gifted students on the classroom practices of teachers. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
6.
Bryant, M. A. (1987). Meeting the needs of gifted first grade children in a heterogeneous classroom. Roeper Review, 9, 214-216.
7.
California Achievement Test, Form E. (1984). Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
8.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round. American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.
10.
Coleman, M. R. (1995). The importance of cluster grouping. Gifted Child Today, 18(1), 38-40.
11.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. W. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12.
Delcourt, M. A. B., & Evans, K. (1994). Qualitative extension of the learning outcomes study. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
13.
Delcourt, M. A. B., Loyd, B. H., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
14.
Dixon, W. J. (Ed.). (1992). BMDP statistical software manual (Vols. 1-2). Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
15.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
16.
Gentry, M. L. (1996). Cluster grouping: An investigation of student achievement, identification, and classroom practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
17.
George, P. (1993). Tracking and ability grouping in the middle school: Ten tentative truths. Middle School Journal, 24(4), 17-24.
18.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Hieronymus, A. N., Hoover, H. D., & Lindquist, E. F. (1984). Iowa tests of basic skills (Form G). Chicago: Riverside Publishing.
20.
Hoover, S., Sayler, M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1993). Cluster grouping of elementary students at the elementary level. Roeper Review, 16, 13-15.
21.
Hopfenberg, W. S., & Levin, H. A. (1993). The accelerated schools resource guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Huck, S. W., & Cormier, W. H. (1996). Reading statistics and research. New York: Harper-Collins.
23.
Juntune, J. (1981). Successful programs for the gifted and talented. Hot Springs, AR: National Association for the Gifted and Talented.
24.
Kaplan, S. N. (1974). Providing programs for the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools.
25.
Kennedy, D. M. (1989). Classroom interactions of gifted and non gifted fifth graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
26.
Kennedy, D. M. (1995). Teaching gifted in regular classrooms: Plain talk about creating a gifted-friendly classroom. Roeper Review, 17, 232-234.
27.
Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
28.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1991). Ability grouping and gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 178-196). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
29.
Kulik,J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.
30.
LaRose, B. (1986). The lighthouse program: A longitudinal research project. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9, 224-232.
31.
McInerney, C. F. (1983). Cluster grouping for the gifted, the bottom line: Research-based classroom strategies. A Series for teachers.St. Paul, MN: LINE.
32.
Michigan Department of Education. (1994, August). 1992-93 Bulletin 1014: Michigan K-12 school districts ranked by selectedfinancial data. Lansing, MI: Author.
33.
Mitchell, E. S. (1986). Multiple triangulation: A methodology for nursing science. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 18-26.
34.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
Oakes, J. (1995). More than meets the eye: Links between tracking and the culture of schools. In H. Pool & J. A. Page (Eds.), Beyond tracking: Finding success in inclusive schools (pp. 59-70). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
36.
Purcell, J. (1994). The status of programs for high ability students. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
37.
Reis, S. M., Gentry, M. L., & Park, S. (1995). Extending the pedagogy of gifted education to all students: The enrichment cluster study. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
38.
Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A comprehensive plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
39.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
40.
Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., Callahan, C., White, A., & Hartman, R. (1977). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
41.
Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
42.
Rogers, K. B. (1993). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers. Roeper Review, 16, 8-12.
43.
Scariano, S., & Davenport,J. (1987). The effects of violations of the independence assumption in the one way ANOVA. American Statistician, 41, 123-129.
44.
Slavin, R. E. (1987a). Ability grouping: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293-336.
45.
Slavin, R. E. (1987b). Grouping for instruction. Equity and Excellence, 23(1-2), 31-36.
46.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
47.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
48.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper-Colfins.
49.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1992). Contributions of gifted education to general education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 183-189.
50.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
51.
Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms (Research Monograph 93104). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
52.
Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How untracking can save America's schools. New York: New Press.
53.
Winebrenner, S. (1992). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
54.
Winebrenner, S., & Devlin, B. (1994). Cluster grouping fact sheet: How to provide full-time services for gifted students on existing budgets. Lombard, IL: Phantom Press.
