ro 343 330

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 301 014

RGgers, Karen B.The Relationship of Grouping Practices to theEducation of the Gifted and Talented Learner.Exs.cutive Summary. Research-Based Decision MakingSeries.National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented,Storrs, CT.Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.Oct 91R206R0000112p.; For the ccmplete report, see EC 301 013.Dissemination Coordinator, The National ResearchCenter on the Gifted and Talented, The University ofConnecticut, 362 Fairfield Road, U-7, Storrs, CT06269-2007 ($72.00, order no. 9102).Reports - Research/Techn.xal (143)

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.*Ability Grouping; Academic Achievement; AcademicallyGifted; Acceleration (Education); CooperativeLearning; Elementary Secondary Educaticm; Enrichment;*Gifted; *Grouping (Instructional 'ourposes);Heterogeneous Grorping; *Instructional Effectiveness;*Meta Analysis; Talent

This executive summary reports on a study whichutilized meta-analysis and best-evidence synthesis techniques toevaluate 23 research studies on the academic, social, andpsychological effects upon learners who are gifted and talented ofthree grouping practices: (1) ability grouping for enrichment; (2)mixed ability cooperative grouping for regular instruction; and (3)grouping for acceleration. It was concluded that the research showedstrong, consistent support for the academic effects of most forms ofability grouping for enrichment and acceleration, but that theresearch is scant and weak concerning the socialization andpsychological adjustment effects of these practices. Claims for theacademic superiority of mixed ability grouping or for wale groupinstructional practices were not substantiated for gifted andtalented learners. Guidelines aee offered suggesting that: studentswho are gifted and talented should spend most of their school daywith others of similar abilities and interests; cluster grouping ofgifted students within an otherwise heterogeneously grouped classroomcan be considered when a full time gifted program is not feasible; across-grade grouping option could be offered in the absence of a fulltime gifted program enrollment; gifted and talented students shouldbe offered a variety of acceleration and enrichment based options;and mixed ability cooperative learning should be used sparingly forstudents who are gifted and talented. (15 references) (Author/DB)

7 8 $TheUnivasityofGeorgia

21.?J

11/111511.0

The Univasity of Connecticut362 Fairfield Road, U-7S CT 06269-2007

DEPAIIITOSAIT Of EDUCATIONOffro qf t ouc000nal Avadoomo an mpfoyomitrq

E DUCA TIONAL souRas oNF ORM-ANONCENTER ERIC

/Ms Oocumfolf IAA Delon IMPKIMIrAMO as

.0renwera /YOrm IMP IIIWItOrl of ofgamter.Dr,rvnating

$0.4.1:M 4:MINIIIS nave Dorn mace 10 anpeorr.rwatl..st,w)r aual/lir

Yo."41 0$ .4.0 0' 00".10flaSIStiM3 MIMS U

rrprIt 00 nI rcp1snlv "lgrelPrw1 otitC4,

or Pi POStlarn or

THE NATIONAL

RESEARCH CENTER

ON THE GIFTED

AND TALENTED

The University of ConnecticutThe University of GeorgiaThe University of VirginiaYale University

The RelMionship of Grouping Practicesto the Education of the

Gifted and Talented Learner

Executive Summary*

Karen B. Rogers, Ph.D.University of St. Thomas

St. Paul, Minnesota

Number 1 in a Series of Papers Dealing. withResearch-Based Decision Making

* This Executive Summary is a condensed version of a longer paperthat contains a comprehensive review and analysis of research onability grouping. Information about how to obtain a copy (Odle fulllength paper can be obtdined by contacting The National ResearchCenter on the Gifted and Talented.

kt ailLLE

The work . ,, herein was 1' .:.0 6*j " under the .lavits Act( P 1 No. R206R 6 i i I I) as administered by the

ce of Educational Research and , , i i -,,, ,, U.S.Department of Education. The il, - IJ not reflect theposition or policies of the Office of : ,i, ... : ,, c Researchand Improvement or the U.S. Department of Educatim

What Does the National Controversy onAbility Grouping Mean for the Gifted?

Several and-grouping advocates bee placedamvices kr the gifted ea their 1dt liselorprowl elbnination. Maay at **claimsabout sewn* findings are maggensed or

Unknonstely. policy =hen analmady udng on these imam

portrayals of resmock We and to dare with advocatesand policy makers anew= to questions such as:

a 'nal does the neearch redly say about

ell* SlesPtheRow does ability grouping affect arif-estean?Do glikd students benefit from cooperativelearning"

Fred the answas to these and other critical questions aboutability pawing resesch by writiag for a copy of:

The Rdationship of Gmuping Practices to theEducation of the Gifted and Talented Learner

By Dr. Xnen B. RogersThe University of k Thomas

Order No. 9101Execadve Summary of Dr. Rowe Paper (7 pp.) ... $2.00

Wee No. 9102--Full Length Paper (Approx. 50 pp. and includesExecutive Suminary) 11.1.1Ww4..1.000...000000110114 $12.00

Note Miamian am distributed at a cost recovery (i.e.,non-ptofit) basis only. All papers distributed by the NRC/GT may be reproduced by purchasers.lhfalre checks payable to The University of Connecticut.Sony, no purchase atlas.

Write ex

Dissemination exudinatorThe National Research Center onthe Gifted and TalentedMe Univasity of annecdcta362 Fairfield Road, U.7Storrs, CT 06269-2007

To order, please fill out the information below:

Yes, I have enclosed a check for the amount specified above, and I would like to puschase:

Order No. 9101 Executive Summary at $2.00Order No. 9102 Full Length Paper (includes Executive Sununary) at $12.00

Name (Please Print)

Sueet Addrest,

Oty, Satz Zip

THE NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTERON THE

GIFTED AND TALENTED

The Relationship of Grouping Practices to the Education of theGifted and Talented Learner: Research-Based Decision Making

ABSTRACT

Karen B. Rogers, Ph.D.University of St. Thomas

St. Paul, Minnesota

In this paper 13 rosearch syntheses were described, analyzed, and evaluated to determine theacademic, social, and psychological effects d a variety of souping practices upon learners whoare gifted and talented. Three general forms of grouping practices were syntheszed: (1) abilitypooping for enrichmmt (2) mixed-abality cooperative gmuping for regular insmictice; and (3)wouping acceleratim. Across the five meta-analyses, two best-e synthesa, and meethnographic/survey research synthesis on atility gimping, it was found that (a) there int varyingacademic outman= for the sevaal forms of ability grouping that have been studied (i.e., tracking,=grouping for specific instruction, cross-grade srouping, enrichment -out, within-classgrotiOng, and cluster , (b) the Reale= outcomes of these °°. of ability ""4my substantially from the - monad for average and low ability leamag (c) -time &thygrouping Welting) produces substantial 'cadmic ping (d) pullout enridiment wowing optionsppduce imbstantial academic gains in achievement, critical thinking, and croativity; (e)

ins r specific instruction options produce substantial academic=mimed (1) cross-grark grouping prodwes substandal

g produces substantial academic effects; and (h) thae is littlecrate gain in attitude toward subject in full-time ability pimping

within-class grouping andgains provided the insmcdon isacKlemic gains; (g) clusterimpact on self-esteem and aoptions.

For the two meta-analyses and one best-evidence synthesis ce mixed-ability cooperative learningthat was no research will II, kw.. below the college level to academic advantages of eithermixed-ability or like- forms. Although no research been directed specifically to theseoutcomes for gifted and ented students, time. was some evidence to suggest sizeable affectiveoutcomes. Across one meta-analysis and one best-evidence synthesis on acceleradon-based

options, several forms of acceleration produced substantial academic effects: NongradedCurriculum Compression (Competing), Grade Telescoping, SuWxt Acceleration,

and Early Admission to College. Moderate academic gains were found for Mvanced Placement.Either small or trivial effects were found for these six options for socialization and psychologicaladjustment.

It was concluded that the research showed strong, ccesistent support for the academic effects ofmost firms of ability grouping for enrichment and acceleration, but the research is scant and weakconcerning the socialization and psrhological adjuument effects of these practices. Claims for theacademic , - of mixed-ability growing or for whcde grow himx pumices were notau , , for I, and talented learners. A series of guidelines for make, based upon themend synthesized was included

The work rapertod heroin was awned under the Javier Act Pro's= (Giant No. R2)6R00001) th administaed by theOThee of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Demon= of Education. The findings donot ceflea the posidon ofthe Office of Educational Research md Improvement or the U.S. Deponment of Education.

Proded by the Ms of Educadoead Rama sad Improvesmi, Maid Sims aiimd Ediasdou

4

The Relationship of Grouping Practicesto the Education of the

Gifted and Talented LearnerKaren B. Rogers, Ph.D.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The recent debate on ability grouping has raised a number of educational issues for teachersand school administratces. In efforts to restructure or transform schools, thereby improving thegeneral level of achievement for all students, many reformers have argued for the elimination ofmost forms of grouping by ability. They have also suggested that grouping be replaced by mixed-ability classrooms in which whole group insuuction and cooperative learning arc the majorinstructional delivery systems. In many cases this manicuring has included the elimination ofaccelerated classes and enrichment programs for the gifted and talented in the name of reform."The Research" has been cited by these reformers as the rationale for such classroom changes(George, 1988; Slavin, 1987; Oakes, 1985). Unfortunately, the research does not appear to havebeen searched comprehensively, but the oversight is also understaniable. With a literature base ofover 700 studies on ability grouping (Kulik & Kulik, 1982) and over 300 studies on cooperativelearning (Johnson, JohnFon & Maruyama, 1983; Slavin, 1984), it is highly unlikely that anyresearcher has had the resources or time to make an effective analysis of these Most= bases. Infact, there have been 13 syntheses of research in the past nine years% all of which representanalyses of parts of these bases. By analyzing 13 syntheses together, however, one can acquire asour ier understanding of what the research really has to say about grouping by ability in generaland about grouping students who art gifted and talented for the purposes of enrichment andacceleration, in specific.

'Ivo synthesis techniques have been developed in recent years to accommodate the hugezesearch data bases we have accumulated over time: meta-analysis and best-evidence synthesis. Inboth techniques, the synthesizer must condiwt an exhaustive search of the literature to locate alltesearch, and then attempt to average across all the studies located to calculate a general effect forthe instructional practice being synthesized. The metric of Effect Size, a procedure introduced byGene Glass in 1976, has been used in these syntheses techniques (except the Gamoran & Berendssymbols, 1987) to communicate the comparative size of academic and nonacademic outcomeswhen all research on an instructional practice is combined. Effect Sizes of +.30 or higher areaccepted as indicative of substantial gain of the experimental practice over its conuol (e.g., abilitygrouping vs. traditional classroom instruction without grouping). Such an Effect Size wouldindicate an approximate thrn mcl,ths' additional gain on a grade-equivalent score continuum ofatreatment group's achievement mer the control group. Table I displays a summary of the EffectSizes reported across du; 13 syntheses for the variety of grouping practices cuffendy used withstudents who are gifted and talented.

2

Ability Grouping for Enrichment

Acron; the five meta-analyses (Ku lik & Ku lik, 1982. 1984, 1990; Kulik, 1985; Vaughan,1990), tin two best-evidence syntheses (Slavin, 1987, 1990), aixl ne ethnopaphirisunfeyresearch synthesis (Gamoran & Bezends, 1987), the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. While full-dme ability grouping (tmcldng) for regular insmiction wakes no discernibledifference in the academic achievementof average and low ability students (Slavin,1987, 1990; Kulik & Kulik, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1990), it does produce substantialacademic gains for gifted stinients enrolled full-time in special programs for the giftedand talented (Ialik & Kulik, 1982, 1984, 1985, 199M Vaughan, 990).2. High ability sturktnt groups have mom extensive plans to attend college and are morehiely to enroll in college, but the research has not been able to substantiate that this isdirectly influenced by groupirig (Gamoran & Berends, 1987). Likewise, research hasnot been able to substantiate that there are marked differences in the qualityof teacherswho work with high ability students or in the instructional strategies and learning timeappordoned in such classes. It is probable that the substantial gains in achievementreported fior gifted and talented students in 6 of the 8 research syntheses is produced bythe interactimi ofgreater degrees of learning teachers who are interested hitheir students and in their subject, and the wigness of gifted students to learn whilein a classroom with other interested, high ability learivrs.

3. Ability grouping for enrichment, - y when enrichnwnt is part of a within classabilitY grouping Practice Or as a olt. Program, produces substantial academic gainsin general achievenvnt, critical g, and creativity for the gifted and talentedlearner (Vaughan, 1990).

4. Abilityimpact on students' self-esteem. When full-time . is there is a

whether for regular instruction or enrichment has littleslight decrease in esteem, but in special programs for, ts, there alt nochanges in self-esteem (Kulik & ICulik, 1984, 1990). nrichment pullout programsshow only a small but positive increase in self-esteem (Vaughan, 1990).

5. Ability growing for the gifted produces a moderate improvement in attitude toward thesubjects in which students are grouped. A moderate improvement in attitude towanisubject has been found for all ability levels when hanogeneously grouped on a fun-d= basis (lCulik & Kulik, 1982, 1990).

6. Ability grouping is not synonymous with "tracking" (Slavin, 1987, 1990). It may takemany fonns beneficial to learners, including full-dine emollmem in special. or classrooms the gifted, regroupmil for special subject instruction, cross-* I grouping for specific subjects or for the entire school curriculum, pullout groupsor enrichment, and within class ability !grouping, as well as cluster grmiping (Kulik&Kulik, 1990). The benefit of each . g strategy for students who are giftedand talented is its a of the format . enriching or accelerating the curriculumthey are offered ulik & Kulik, 1990). It is unlikely that grouping itselfcausesacademic gains; rather, what goes on in the group does.

3

Cooperative Learning for Regular Instruction

Across the two mgjormeta-analyses (Johnson, Mamma, Johnsen, Neism & Skon,1981; Johnsen!, *Anson, & Mamma, 1983) and one best-evidence synthesis (Slavin, 1990) onthe acid:laic and nonacademic effects of mixed-ability cooperative "Duping, thefolkwingconclusions may be drawn:

1. Cooperative learning in mixed-ability groups for regular instruction canna be shown tobe acatkmically beneficial for Ofted and talented learners. Likewise, there is noresearch below the college kwl to support cooperative learning in like-ability groupsfor gifted students (Robmson, 1990).

2. Although there is some evidence to - sizable acadanic effects for those forms ofcooperative learning thatincaporate vidual task accountability (Slavin, 1990), littleresearch has been reported which would allow this to be extrapolated to the giftedmulation.

3. Although there is some evidence to support sizable affective outcomes for mixed ability'ye learning, particularly for the acceptance ofcultumay diverse andmically handicapped students (Johnson, Johnson & Maruyama, 1983; Slavin,1990), no research has been reported which would allow this to be exuapolated to thegifted population (Robinson, 1990).

Grouping for Acceleration

Across the one meta-analysis (Kulik & Kulik, 1984) and one best-eviderce synthesis(Rogers, 1991) on accelerative practices forgifted students, the following conclusions aboutgrouping for acceleration can be drawn:

1. Grouping fce the acceleration of curriculum for gifted students produces substantialacademic pins for the forms of Nongraded Classrooms, Ouriculum Compression(Compacting), Grade Telescoping (Rapid Pro ssion at Junioror Senior High),Subject Acceleration, and Early Admission to ege. Advanced Placement programswere found to produce moderate, nearly significant academic gains as well (Rogers,1991).

2. Those forms of acceleration for which groups of gifted learners may involve:1d lo notto have a direct impacton self-mem, either posidvely or negatively (Kulik &ulik, 1984; Rogers, 1991). It is apparent that a host of other environmental,personological, and academic variables are more directly involved with changes in self-esteem.

4

Recommendations fOr Practices Involving Ability Grouping

Based cm conclusions drawn from the research syntheses, the following guidelinesareoffered for educators who am mouldering various gimping options for gifted students.

GUIDELINE ONE: Students who are academically or intellectually giftedand talented should spend the majority of their school day with others ofsimilar abilities and interests.

Discussion: What kerns this wdots may take are wen: Both general intellectual abilitygrouping programs (such as School Within a School, Gifted Magnet Schools, Full-timeGifted Prograins, orGifted Class.00ms) and full-time grouping forspecial academic ability(such as Magnet Schools) have produced marked academic achievement gains as well asmoderate increases in attitude toward the subjects in whkh these students are grouped.

QUIDELINE TWQ: The Cluster Grouping of a small number of students,either intellectually gifted or gifted hi a similar academic domain, within anotherwise heterogeneously grouped classroom can be coniddered whenschools cannot support a hill-time gifted program (either demographically,economically, or philosophically).

Discussion: The "Cluster Teacher" must, however, be sufficiently trained to work withgifted students, must be given adequate preparation time and must be willing to devote apropordonate amount of classroom time to the direct provision of learning experienms forthe cluster group.

GUIDELINE THREE: In the absence of full-time gifted program?nroliment, gifted and talented students might be offered specific groupinstruction across grade levels, according to their individual knowledgeacquisition in school subjects, either in conjunction with cluster groupingor in its stead.

Discussion: This "cross grade grouping" option has been found effective for the gifted andtalented in both single subject and full-time programming (i.e., Nongribled Classrooms).

: Students who are gifted and talented should be giveng a variety of appropriate acceleration-based options,which may be offered to gifted students as a group or on an Individualbasis.

Discussion: It is, of course, important to consider the social and psychological adjustmentof each student for whom such options are being considered as well as cognitivecapabilities in making the optimal match to the student's needs.

5

Mg: Students who are gifted and talented should be given=co which Involve various forms of enrichment that extend theregular school curriculum, leading to the more complete development ofconcepts, principles, and generalisations.

Discussion: This enrichment could be provided within the classroom through numerous

curriculum delivery models cunently used in the field, or in the form of emichment pullout

program&

: Mixed-ability Cooperative Learning should be usedf4rligitilwflatudents who are gifted and talented, perhaps only for socialskills development program

Discussion; Until evidence is accumulated that this firm of Cooperative Learning provides

academic outcomes similar or superior to the various forms of ability grouping, it is

important to continue with the grouping practices that are supported by research.

6

References

Gamoran, A., & Berends, K (1987). The effects of stratification in secmidary schods:Syntistsis of survey and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 57, 415-435.

Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, seccedaty, and meta-analysis of research. EilacationalResearcher, 5 (10), 3-8.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence and interpersonalattraction amcmg heterogeneous and hanogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulationand a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Research in Education, 53, 415-424.

Janson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R.., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects ofcowerative, competitive, and individualistic goals structurescnt achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.

Kulik, C.L C. (1985). liffects of inter-class ability grouping on achievement and seV-esteem.Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, LosAngeles, CA.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students:A imta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415-428.

Kulik, C-L. C., & Kulik, J. (1984). E,ffects of ability grouping on elementary school pupils: Ameta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation, Ontario, Canada.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L C. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review ofEducational Research, 54, 409-425.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1990). Ability grouping and gifted students. In N. Colangelo &G.A. Davis (Us), Handbook of Wed education (pp. 178-196). Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Robinson, A. (1990). Point-counterpoint: Cooperationor exploitation? The argument againstcooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Med, 14, 9-27.

I 0

7

Rogers, K. B. (1991). A beskevidence synthesis cf the resairch on accelerative option s for Wed

students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping: A best-evidence synthesis. Review ((EducationalResearch, 57, 293-336.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievc-nent effects of ability gimping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-499.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative leo -fling: Theory, research and pra cii ce. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Vaughan, V. L (1990). Meta-analysis o f pull-out progroynsin gifted education. Paper presented

at the annual convention of the National Association for Gifted Children, Little Rock, AR.

11

8

Table 1Effects Sizes Reported for

Research-Supported Gifted Program Options

Dotalligaikinig

Effect Size

Early Entrance to School .36Subject Acoekzation .49Curriculum Compression (Compacting) .45Grade Skipping .78Enrichment (pullout) - curriculum extension .65Enriched Classes Ability Grouped .33Doss-grade Grouping (reading, math) .45Nongruled Classes .38Concunent Enrollment .36Regrouping for Specific Instruction (reading, math) .3-4

Advanced Placement .29Credit by Examination .75Cluster Grouping (specific differentiation) .62Separate Classes for Gifted .33Cooperative Izarning

Johnson's "Learning Together" 0Slavin's TOT .38Slavin's 511. (combination) .30

Grade Telescoping .56Mentorship .42

Note: The Effect Sizes listed cannot be directly compared with others in the table. Scum representone-time academic gains, while others may be possibly cumulative gains1 progressively increasingthe longer the practice is used. The quality of the criterion measures used varies greatly frompractice to practice also, thereby confounding any cross-comparisons to be made.