This study examined the effects of early acceleration of students in mathematics on the development of their attitudes toward mathematics and mathematics anxiety across junior and senior high school. Data were derived from the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY). Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analyses showed that attitudes declined in the same degree between accelerated and nonaccelerated gifted and honors students, but declined significantly faster in accelerated than nonaccelerated regular students. Accelerated gifted students did not increase their anxiety. Anxiety grew at a similar rate between accelerated and nonaccelerated honors students, but accelerated regular students increased their anxiety significantly faster than nonaccelerated regular students. Once students were accelerated, most variation in rates of attitude and anxiety change was at the student rather than school level. Racial/ethnic background was the most important factor influencing rate of change at the student level. School contextual characteristics were major factors influencing rate of change at the school level.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenbowC. P. (1991). Meeting the needs of gifted students through use of acceleration. In WangM. C., ReynoldsM. C., & WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice (Vol. 4, pp. 23–36). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
2.
BishopA. J. (1991). Mathematical enculturation: A cultural perspective on mathematics education.Boston: Kluwer.
3.
BishopA. J. (2000). Critical challenges in researching cultural issues in mathematics learning. In FernandezM. L. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 23–29). Columbus, OH: ERIC.
4.
BrykA. S., & RaudenbushS. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
DaviesP. T., & CummingsE. M. (1998). Exploring children's emotional security as a mediator of the link between marital relations and child adjustment. Child Development, 69, 124–139.
6.
DurdenW. G., & TangherliniA. E. (1993). Smart kids: How academic talents are developed and nurtured in America.Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
7.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
GlassG. V., & HopkinsK. D. (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9.
KarperJ., & MelnickS. A. (1993). The effectiveness of team accelerated instruction on high achievers in mathematics. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20, 49–54.
10.
KolitchE. R., & BrodyL. E. (1992). Mathematics acceleration of highly talented students: An evaluation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 78–86.
11.
KulikJ. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives.Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
12.
LensW., & DecruyenaereM. (1991). Motivation and de-motivation in secondary education: Student characteristics. Learning and Instruction, 1, 145–159.
13.
LimT. K. (1995). Using the SAT-M to identify the mathematically talented in Singapore. Gifted Education International, 11, 34–38.
14.
LiuZ., & LiuP. (1997). Practice and theoretical exploration on supernormal education of mathematics to gifted and talented children from 6–8. In ChanJ., LiR., & SpinksJ. (Eds.), Maximizing potential: Lengthening and strengthening our stride. Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children (pp. 130–135). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.
15.
McLeodD. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In GrouwsD. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 575–596). New York: Macmillan.
16.
McLeodD. B. (1994). Research on affect and mathematics learning in the JRME: 1970 to the present. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 637–647.
17.
MillerJ., & HofferT. B. (1994). Longitudinal Study of American Youth: Overview of study design and data resources.Dekalb: Social Science Research Institute, Northern Illinois University.
18.
MillerR., MillsC., & TangherliniA. (1995). The Appalachia model mathematics program for gifted student. Roeper Review, 18, 138–141.
19.
NealeD. C. (1969). The role of attitudes in learning mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 16, 631–640.
20.
PaulusP. (1984). Acceleration: More than grade skipping. Roeper Review, 7, 98–100.
21.
RobinsonA., & StanleyT. D. (1989). Teaching to talent: Evaluating an enriched and accelerated mathematics program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 253–267.
22.
RosenthalR., & RosnowR. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis.New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
RumbergerR. G., & WillmsJ. D. (1992). The impact of racial and ethnic segregation on the achievement gap in California high schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 377–396.
24.
SammonsP. (1999). School effectiveness: Coming of age in the twenty-first century.Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
25.
SchackG. D. (1993). Effects of a creative problem-solving curriculum on students of varying ability levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 32–38.
26.
SouthenW. T., & JonesE. D. (1991). Academic acceleration: Background and issues. In SouthernW. T., & JonesE. D. (Eds.), The academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 1–28). New York: Teacher College Press.
27.
StanleyJ. C. (1991). An academic model for educating the mathematically talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 36–42.
28.
SwiatekM. A. (1993). A decade of longitudinal research on academic acceleration through the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth. Roeper Review, 15, 120–124.
29.
SwiatekM. A., & BenbowC. P. (1991a). A ten-year longitudinal follow-up of participants in a fast-paced mathematics course. Journal for research in mathematics Education, 22, 138–150.
30.
SwiatekM. A., & BenbowC. P. (1991b). Ten-year longitudinal follow-up of ability matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 528–538.
31.
TeddlieC., & ReynoldsD. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research.London: Falmer.
32.
TerwilligerJ. S., & TitusJ. C. (1995). Gender differences in attitudes and attitude changes among mathematically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 29–35.
33.
TriandisH. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change.New York: Wiley.
34.
UpdegraffK. A., & EcclesJ. S. (1996). Course enrollment as self-regulatory behavior: who takes optional high school math courses?Learning & Individual Differences, 8, 239–260.
35.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (1992). Educational decision making on acceleration and grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 68–72.
36.
WillmsJ. D., JacobsenS. (1990). Growth in Mathematics skills during the intermediate years: Gender differences in school effects. International Journal of Educational Research, 14, 157–174.
37.
WoodE. F. (1988). Math anxiety and elementary teachers: What does research tell us?For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(1), 8–13.
