The primary purpose of this study was to identify the effect on mathematics achievement and attitude of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping of gifted sixth grade students. The secondary purpose was to find the effect on mathematics achievement and attitude of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping on average- and low-ability students. There were 208 subjects in the study. The results indicated that there was a positive effect for achievement in mathematics for identified gifted sixth graders in homogeneous grouping when compared to gifted students in heterogeneous grouping using the TOMA (Test of Mathematical Abilities) – Computation Subtest. No statistically significant difference was found for mathematics achievement for average and low ability students based on grouping. Quantitative and qualitative results will be shared related to students' attitudes toward grouping.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AikenL. R. (1976). Update on attitudes and other affective variables in learning mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 46(2), 293–311.
2.
AikenL. R.DregerR. M. (1961). The effect of attitudes on performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(1), 19–24.
3.
AnttonenR. G. (1969). A longitudinal study in mathematics attitude. Journal of Educational Research, 62(10), 467–471.
4.
BenbowC. P.ArjmandO. (1990). Predictors of high academic achievement in mathematics and science by mathematically talented students: A longitudinal study. Educational Psychology, 82(3), 430–439.
5.
BenbowC. P.ArjmandO.WalbergH. J. (1991). Educational productivity predictors among mathematically talented students. Journal of Educational Research, 84(4), 215–223.
6.
BrownV. L.McEntireE. (1984). Test of mathematical abilities: A method for assessing mathematical aptitudes and attitudes. Austin, TX: ProEd.
7.
DelisleJ. A. (1984). Gifted children speak out. New York: Walker & Co.
8.
FeldhusenJ. F. (1989a). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 6–11.
9.
GalagherJ. J. (1990). Thoughts on cooperative and competitive learning. Paper presented at N/S Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented, Houston, TX.
10.
GallagherJ. J. (1991). Educational reform, values, and gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(1), 12–19.
11.
GeorgiadesW. D.HalbertT. D. (Eds.). (1991). Learning guides: A tool for improving student performance. Educational Services International, University of Houston.
12.
GoldringE. B. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom organizational frameworks for gifted students. Journal of Educational Research, 86(6), 313–326.
13.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (1990). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
14.
KrutetskiiV. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
KulikJ. A. (1991). Findings on grouping are often distorted. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 67.
16.
KulikC. L.KulikJ. A. (1982). Research synthesis on ability grouping. Educational Leadership, 39(8), 619–621.
17.
KulikC. L.KulikJ. A. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 265–299.
18.
KulikJ. A.KulikC. L. (1984). Synthesis of research on effects of accelerated instruction. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 84–89.
19.
KulikJ. A.KulikC. L. (1987). Mastery testing and student learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 15(3), 325–345.
20.
KulikJ. A.KulikC. L. (1989). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equity and Excellence, 23(1), 22–29.
21.
MillsC. J.DurdenW. G. (1992). Cooperative learning and ability grouping: An issue of choice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(1), 11–16.
22.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. A. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(1), 26–34.
23.
RobinsonA. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(1), 2–27.
24.
RogersK. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. Report to National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, CT: University of Connecticut.
25.
RossJ. A. (1988). Improving social-environmental studies problem solving through cooperative learning. American Educational Research Journal, 25(4), 573–591.
26.
SatoI. S. (1990). The role of competitive and cooperative grouping to instruct the gifted and talented. N/S Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented, Houston, TX.
27.
SchunkD. H. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 149–174.
28.
SlavinR. E. (1977). Classroom reward structure: An analytical and practical review. Review of Educational Research, 47(4), 633–650.
29.
SlavinR. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?. Psychological Bulletin, 94(3), 429–445.
30.
SlavinR. E. (1987a). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293–336.
31.
SlavinR. E. (1987b). Cooperative learning and cooperative schools. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 7–13.
32.
SlavinR. E. (1990a). Learning together. American School Board Journal, 177(8), 22–24.
33.
SlavinR. E. (1990b). Ability grouping, cooperative learning, and the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(3), 3–8.
34.
SlavinR. E. (1991a). Are cooperative learning and “untracking” harmful to the gifted?Educational Leadership, 48(6), 68–71.
35.
SlavinR. E. (1991b). Synthesis of educational research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 63–74.
36.
SlavinR. E.KarweitN. L. (1984). Within-class ability grouping and student mathematics achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
37.
SlavinR. E.KarweitN. L. (1985). Effects of whole class, ability grouped, and individualized instruction on mathematics achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 22(3), 351–367.
38.
Van Tassel-BaskaJ. (1992). Educational decision making on acceleration and grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 68–72.
