convert

NRC

G/T

THE NATIONAL
RESEARCH CENTER
ON THE GIFTED
AND TALENTED

The University of Connecticut
The University of Georgia
The University of Virginia
Yale University

The Relationship of Grouping

Practices to the Education of the

Gifted and Talented Learner

Karen B. Rogers, Ph.D.

University of St. Thomas

St. Paul, Minnesota

October 1991

Number 9102

The University of Georgia

PRACTICES

RESEARCH-BASED DECISION MAKING SERIES

ROUPIN

The Relationship of Grouping Practices

to the Education of the

Gifted and Talented Learner

Karen B. Rogers, Ph.D.

University of St. Thomas

St. Paul, Minnesota

October 1991

Number 9102

PRACTICES

RESEARCH-BASED DECISION MAKING SERIES

ROUPIN

THE NATIONAL

RESEARCH CENTER

ON THE GIFTED

AND TALENTED

The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT) is funded under the

Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act, Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, United States Department of Education.
The Directorate of the NRC/GT serves as the administrative unit and is located at

The University of Connecticut.
The participating universities include The University of Georgia, The University of Vir-

ginia, and Yale University, as well as a research unit at The University of

Connecticut.

The University of Connecticut

Dr. Joseph S. Renzulli, Director

Dr. E. Jean Gubbins, Assistant Director

The University of Connecticut

Dr. Francis X. Archambault, Associate Director

The University of Georgia

Dr. Mary M. Frasier, Associate Director

The University of Virginia

Dr. Carolyn M. Callahan, Associate Director

Yale University

Dr. Robert J. Sternberg, Associate Director

Copies of this report are available from:

NRC/GT

The University of Connecticut

362 Fairfield Road, U-7

Storrs, CT 06269-2007

The work reported herein was supported under the Javits Act Program (Grant No. R206R00001) as ad-

ministered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The

findings do not reflect the position or policies of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement or

the U.S. Department of Education.

Note to Readers...

All papers that are commissioned by The National Research Center on the Gifted and Tal-

ented for the Research-Based Decision Making Series may be reproduced in their entirety

or in sections. All reproductions, whether in part or whole, should include the following

statement:

The work reported herein was supported under the Javits Act

Program (Grant No. R206R00001) as administered by the Office

of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of

Education. The findings do not reflect the position or policies of

the Office of Educational Research and Improvement or the U.S.

Department of Education.
This document has been reproduced with the permission of The

National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

If sections of the papers are printed in other publications, please forward a copy to:

The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented

The University of Connecticut

362 Fairfield Road, U-7

Storrs, CT 06269-2007

Please Note: Papers may not be reproduced by means of electronic media.

iii

About the author....

Dr. Karen B. Rogers

is a member of the Content Area Consultant Bank for The National

Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Dr. Rogers is an Assistant Professor in the Gifted

and Special Education Program at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. She

is author of OMNIBUS, an enrichment program for elementary students, currently operat-

ing in 22 states. She collaborated with Maynard Reynolds of the University of Minnesota

in writing and producing ten one-half hour television shows for PBS on giftedness, titled

"One Step Ahead."

vii

The Relationship of Grouping Practices to the

Education of the Gifted and Talented Learner:

Research-Based Decision Making

Karen B. Rogers, Ph.D.

University of St. Thomas

St. Paul, Minnesota

ABSTRACT

In this paper 13 research syntheses were described, analyzed, and evaluated to determine
the academic, social, and psychological effects of a variety of grouping practices upon
learners who are gifted and talented. Three general forms of grouping practices were
synthesized: (1) ability grouping for enrichment; (2) mixed-ability cooperative grouping
for regular instruction; and (3) grouping for acceleration. Across the five meta-analyses,
two best-evidence syntheses, and one ethnographic/survey research synthesis on ability
grouping, it was found that:  (a) there are varying academic outcomes for the several
forms of ability grouping that have been studied (i.e., tracking, regrouping for specific
instruction, cross-grade grouping, enrichment pull-out, within-class grouping, and cluster
grouping);  (b) the academic outcomes of these forms of ability grouping vary
substantially from the effects reported for average and low ability learners; (c) full-time
ability grouping (tracking) produces substantial academic gains; (d) pullout enrichment
grouping options produce substantial academic gains in general achievement, critical
thinking, and creativity; (e) within-class grouping and regrouping for specific instruction
options produce substantial academic gains provided the instruction is differentiated; (f)
cross-grade grouping produces substantial academic gains; (g) cluster grouping produces
substantial academic effects; and (h) there is little impact on self-esteem and a moderate
gain in attitude toward subject in full-time ability grouping options.

For the two meta-analyses and one best-evidence synthesis on mixed-ability cooperative
learning there was no research reported below the college level to support academic
advantages of either mixed-ability or like-ability forms.  Although no research had been
directed specifically to these outcomes for gifted and talented students, there was some
evidence to suggest sizeable affective outcomes.  Across one meta-analysis and one best-
evidence synthesis on acceleration-based grouping options, several forms of acceleration
produced substantial academic effects:  Nongraded Classrooms, Curriculum Compression
(Compacting), Grade Telescoping, Subject Acceleration, and  Early Admission to
College.  Moderate academic gains were found for Advanced Placement.  Either small or
trivial effects were found for these six options for socialization and psychological
adjustment.

It was concluded that the research showed strong, consistent support for the academic
effects of most forms of ability grouping for enrichment and acceleration, but the
research is scant and weak concerning the socialization and psychological adjustment

viii

effects of these practices. Claims for the academic superiority of mixed-ability grouping
or for whole group instructional practices were not substantiated for gifted and talented
learners. A series of guidelines for practice, based upon the research synthesized was
included.

The Relationship of Grouping Practices to the

Education of the Gifted and Talented Learner:

Research-Based Decision Making

Karen B. Rogers, Ph.D.

University of St. Thomas

St. Paul, Minnesota

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The recent debate on ability grouping has raised a number of educational issues

for teachers and school administrators.  In efforts to restructure or transform schools,
thereby improving the general level of achievement for all students,  many reformers
have argued for the elimination of most forms of grouping by ability.  They have also
suggested that grouping be replaced by mixed-ability classrooms in which whole group
instruction and cooperative learning are the major instructional delivery systems.  In
many cases this restructuring has included the elimination of accelerated 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 have
been searched comprehensively, but the oversight is also understandable.  With a
literature base of over 700 studies on ability grouping (Kulik & Kulik, 1982) and over
300 studies on cooperative learning (Johnson, Johnson & Maruyama, 1983; Slavin,
1984), it is highly unlikely that any researcher has had the resources or time to make an
effective analysis of these literature bases.  In fact, there have been 13 syntheses of
research in the past nine years, all of which represent analyses of parts of these bases.  By
analyzing 13 syntheses together, however, one can acquire a sounder understanding of
what the research really has to say about grouping by ability in general and about
grouping students who are gifted and talented for the purposes of enrichment and
acceleration, in specific.

Two synthesis techniques have been developed in recent years to accommodate

the huge research data bases we have accumulated over time:  meta-analysis and best-
evidence synthesis.  In both techniques, the synthesizer must conduct an exhaustive
search of the literature to locate all research, and then attempt to average across all the
studies located to calculate a general effect for the instructional practice being
synthesized.  The metric of Effect Size, a procedure introduced by Gene Glass in 1976,
has been used in these syntheses techniques (except the Gamoran & Berends synthesis,
1987) to communicate the comparative size of academic and nonacademic outcomes
when all research on an instructional practice is combined.  Effect Sizes of +.30 or higher
are accepted as indicative of substantial gain of the experimental practice over its control
(e.g., ability grouping vs. traditional classroom instruction without grouping).  Such an
Effect Size would indicate an approximate three months’ additional gain on a grade-
equivalent score continuum of a treatment group’s achievement over the control group.

Table 1 displays a summary of the Effect Sizes reported across the 13 syntheses for the
variety of grouping practices currently used with students who are gifted and talented.

Table 1

Effects Sizes Reported for Research-Supported Gifted Program Options

Academic

Option

Effect Size

Early Entrance to School

.36

Subject Acceleration

.49

Curriculum Compression (Compacting)

.45

Grade Skipping

.78

Enrichment (pullout) - curriculum extension

.65

Enriched Classes Ability Grouped

.33

Cross-grade Grouping (reading, math)

.45

Nongraded Classes

.38

Concurrent Enrollment

.36

Regrouping for Specific Instruction (reading, math)

.34

Advanced Placement

.29

Credit by Examination

.75

Cluster Grouping (specific differentiation)

.62

Separate Classes for Gifted

.33

Cooperative Learning

Johnson's "Learning Together"

Slavin's TGT

.38

Slavin's STL (combination)

.30

Grade Telescoping

.56

Mentorship

.42

________________________________________________________________________

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

Ability Grouping for Enrichment

Across the

five

meta-analyses (Kulik & Kulik, 1982, 1984, 1990; Kulik, 1985;

Vaughn, 1990), the

two

best-evidence syntheses (Slavin, 1987, 1990), and one

ethnographic/survey research synthesis (Gamoran & Berends, 1987), the following
conclusions can be drawn:

While full-time ability grouping (tracking) for regular instruction makes
no discernible difference in the academic achievement of average and low
ability students (Slavin, 1987, 1990; Kulik & Kulik, 1982, 1984, 1985,

1990), it does produce substantial academic gains for gifted students
enrolled full-time in special programs for the gifted and talented (Kulik &
Kulik, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1990; Vaughn, 1990).

High ability student groups have more extensive plans to attend college
and are more likely to enroll in college, but the research has not been able
to substantiate that this is directly influenced by grouping (Gamoran &
Berends, 1987). Likewise, research has not been able to substantiate that
there are marked differences in the quality of teachers who work with high
ability students or in the instructional strategies and learning time
apportioned in such classes. It is probable that the substantial gains in
achievement reported for gifted and talented students in 6 of the 8 research
syntheses is produced by the interaction of greater degrees of learning
potential, teachers who are interested in their students and in their subject,
and the willingness of gifted students to learn while in a classroom with
other interested, high ability learners.

Ability grouping for enrichment, especially when enrichment is part of a
within class ability grouping practice or as a pullout program, produces
substantial academic gains in general achievement, critical thinking, and
creativity for the gifted and talented learner (Vaughn, 1990).

Ability grouping, whether for regular instruction or enrichment purposes,
has little impact on gifted students’ self-esteem. When full-time grouping
is initiated, there is a slight decrease in esteem, but in special programs for
gifted students, there are no changes in self-esteem (Kulik & Kulik, 1984,
1990). Enrichment pullout programs show only a small but positive
increase in self-esteem (Vaughn, 1990).

Ability grouping for the gifted produces a moderate improvement in
attitude toward the subjects in which students are grouped. A moderate
improvement in attitude toward subject has been found for all ability
levels when homogeneously grouped on a full-time basis (Kulik & Kulik,
1982, 1990).

Ability grouping is not synonymous with “tracking” (Slavin, 1987, 1990).
It may take many forms beneficial to gifted learners, including full-time
enrollment in special programs or classrooms for the gifted, regrouping for
special subject instruction, cross-grade grouping for specific subjects or
for the entire school curriculum, pullout groups for enrichment, and within
class ability grouping, as well as cluster grouping (Kulik & Kulik, 1990).
The major benefit of each grouping strategy for students who are gifted
and talented is its provision of the format for enriching or accelerating the
curriculum they are offered (Kulik & Kulik, 1990).  It is unlikely that
grouping itself causes academic gains; rather, what goes on in the group
does.

xii

Cooperative Learning for Regular Instruction

Across the

two

major meta-analyses (Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson &

Skon, 1981; Johnson, Johnson & Maruyama, 1983) and

one

best-evidence synthesis

(Slavin, 1990) on the academic and nonacademic effects of mixed-ability cooperative
grouping, the following conclusions may be drawn:

Cooperative learning in mixed-ability groups for regular instruction cannot
be shown to be academically beneficial for gifted and talented learners.
Likewise, there is no research below the college level to support
cooperative learning in like-ability groups for gifted students (Robinson,
1990).

Although there is some evidence to support sizable academic effects for
those forms of cooperative learning that incorporate individual task
accountability (Slavin, 1990), little research has been reported which
would allow this to be extrapolated to the gifted population.

Although there is some evidence to support sizable affective outcomes for
mixed ability cooperative learning, particularly for the acceptance of
culturally diverse and academically handicapped students (Johnson,
Johnson & Maruyama, 1983; Slavin, 1990), no research has been reported
which would allow this to be extrapolated to the gifted population
(Robinson, 1990).

Grouping for Acceleration

Across the

one

meta-analysis (Kulik & Kulik, 1984) and

one

best-evidence

synthesis (Rogers, 1991) on accelerative practices for gifted students, the following
conclusions about grouping for acceleration can be drawn:

Grouping for the acceleration of curriculum for gifted students produces
substantial academic gains for the forms of Nongraded Classrooms,
Curriculum Compression (Compacting), Grade Telescoping (Rapid
Progression at Junior or Senior High), Subject Acceleration, and Early
Admission to College. Advanced Placement programs were found to
produce moderate, nearly significant academic gains as well (Rogers, 1991).

Those forms of acceleration for which groups of gifted learners may be
involved do not appear to have a direct impact on self-esteem, either
positively or negatively (Kulik & Kulik, 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.

Recommendations for Practices Involving Ability Grouping

Based on conclusions drawn from the research syntheses, the following guidelines

are offered for educators who are considering various grouping options for gifted
students.

xiii

GUIDELINE ONE: Students who are academically or intellectually gifted

and talented should spend the majority of their school day with others of similar
abilities and interests.

Discussion: What forms this option may take are open: Both general intellectual

ability grouping programs (such as School Within a School, Gifted Magnet Schools, Full-
time Gifted Programs, or Gifted Classrooms) and full-time grouping for special academic
ability (such as Magnet Schools) have produced marked academic achievement gains as
well as moderate increases in attitude toward the subjects in which these students are
grouped.

GUIDELINE TWO: The Cluster Grouping of a small number of students,

either intellectually gifted or gifted in a similar academic domain, within an otherwise
heterogeneously grouped classroom can be considered when schools cannot support a
full-time gifted program (either demographically, economically, or philosophically).

Discussion: The "Cluster Teacher" must, however, be sufficiently trained to work

with gifted students, must be given adequate preparation time and must be willing to
devote a proportionate amount of classroom time to the direct provision of learning
experiences for the cluster group.

GUIDELINE THREE: In the absence of full-time gifted program

enrollment, gifted and talented students might be offered specific group instruction
across grade levels, according to their individual knowledge acquisition in school
subjects, either in conjunction with cluster grouping or in its stead.

Discussion: This "cross grade grouping" option has been found effective for the

gifted and talented in both single subject and full-time programming (i.e., Nongraded
Classrooms).

GUIDELINE FOUR: Students who are gifted and talented should be given

experiences involving a variety of appropriate acceleration-based options, which
may be offered to gifted students as a group or on an individual basis.

Discussion: It is, of course, important to consider the social and psychological

adjustment of each student for whom such options are being considered as well as
cognitive capabilities in making the optimal match to the student's needs.

GUIDELINE FIVE: Students who are gifted and talented should be given

experiences which involve various forms of enrichment that extend the regular
school curriculum, leading to the more complete development of concepts,
principles, and generalizations.

Discussion: This enrichment could be provided within the classroom through

numerous curriculum delivery models currently used in the field, or in the form of
enrichment pullout programs.

xiv

GUIDELINE SIX: Mixed-ability Cooperative Learning should be used

sparingly for students who are gifted and talented, perhaps only for social skills
development programs.

Discussion: Until evidence is accumulated that this form 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.

References

Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools:

Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research.

Review of Educational Research,

, 415-435.

Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research.

Educational

Researcher, 5

(10), 3-8.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence and

interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A
theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research.

Review of Research

in Education, 53

, 415-424.

Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of

cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goals structures on achievement: A
meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 89

, 47-62.

Kulik, C-L. C. (1985).

Effects of inter-class ability grouping on achievement and self-

esteem

. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological

Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Kulik, C-L. C., & Kulik, J. (1984).

Effects of ability grouping on elementary school

pupils: A meta-analysis

. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Psychological Association, Ontario, Canada.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1982).

Effects of ability grouping on secondary school

students: A meta-analysis

. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415-

428.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students.

Review of Educational Research, 54

, 409-425.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1990). Ability grouping and gifted students. In N.

Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.),

Handbook of gifted education

(pp. 178-196).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Robinson, A. (1990). Point-counterpoint: Cooperation or exploitation? The argument

against cooperative learning for talented students.

Journal for the Education of

the Gifted

, 9-27.

Rogers, K. B. (1991).

A best-evidence synthesis of the research on accelerative options

for gifted students

. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota,

Minneapolis.

xvi

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping: A best-evidence synthesis.

Review of

Educational Research, 57

, 293-336.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A

best-evidence synthesis.

Review of Educational Research, 60

, 471-499.

Slavin, R. E. (1990).

Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice

. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Vaughn, V. L. (1990).

Meta-analysis of pull-out programs in gifted education

. Paper

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

xvii

Table of Contents

Abstract

vii

Executive Summary

Section One: Approaches to Research

The "Charisma" Approach

The "I Found This Study" Approach

The "Apples and Oranges" Approach

The Best-Evidence Approach

Section Two: Problems and Issues Related to Grouping

Concerns/Assumptions Often Raised About Academic Achievement and

Self-Esteem

Concerns/Assumptions Often Raised About Teacher/Student Expectations

Concerns/Assumptions Often Raised About Racial and Social Discrimination,

Mobility

Concerns/Assumptions Often Raised About Instructional Quality

Concerns/Assumptions Often Raised About Social Cohesion

Section Three: Research Synthesis

Ability Grouping Research

Research Syntheses by James Kulik and Chen-Lin Kulik

Research Syntheses by Robert Slavin

Research Synthesis by Gamoran and Berends

Research Synthesis by Vaughn

Cooperative Learning Research

Research Synthesis by Johnson, Johnson and Maruyama

Research Synthesis by Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson,

and Skon

Research Synthesis by Robert Slavin

Research on Acceleration

Research Synthesis by James Kulik and Chen-Lin Kulik

Research Synthesis by Rogers

Summary

Section Four: Guidelines for Serving the Needs of Gifted and Talented

Students

References

Appendices

A: Meta-Evaluation of Research Syntheses on Grouping Issues

B: Research-Supported Conclusions Concerning Grouping Issues

The Relationship of Grouping Practices to the Education of the Gifted

and Talented Learner:

Research-Based Decision Making

Karen B. Rogers, Ph.D.

University of St. Thomas

St. Paul, Minnesota

In the past five years the practice of grouping students by ability has been

questioned by educational researchers and school administrators.  Several have argued
that the use of ability grouping for reducing the demands upon teachers and improving
the academic achievement of learners is not sufficient reason for maintaining the practice
(for example, George, 1988; Slavin, 1987; Oakes, 1985).  Other researchers have extolled
the academic and social superiority of mixed-ability cooperative learning groups over
other grouping practices (for example, Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Slavin, 1990).  Amidst
all the rhetoric lies one common theme:  Each researcher and writer claims "the research
supports" the conclusions drawn.  With a literature base of over 700 studies on ability
grouping (Kulik & Kulik, 1982), over 300 studies on cooperative learning (Johnson,
Johnson, & Maruyama, 1983; Slavin, 1984), and over 300 studies on accelerative options
involving forms of regrouping (Rogers, 1991), it is evident that no single researcher or
writer is deliberately trying to mislead the general public or the educational decision
maker.  It is more likely that an effective analysis of the literature bases on grouping
issues has not been undertaken, a mistake this paper will attempt to correct.

SECTION ONE: APPROACHES TO RESEARCH

In effect, there are four general approaches to understanding and using research in

educational practice: (1) the "charisma" approach; (2) the "I found this study" approach;
(3) the "apples and oranges" approach; and, (4) the "best-evidence" approach.
Educational decision-makers need to understand these approaches and their strengths and
weaknesses in order to effectively "consume" or even make sense of the research on
educational practice.

The "Charisma" Approach

Charismatic and articulate educators (with strong feelings about certain practices)

can make broad, simplistic claims that their recommendations are "research supported,"
with little challenge from non-researchers in the typical audience.  The research cited by
such educators is often tangential or focused on only a small part of the total research
base.  For example, references to the "research" against tracking by Oakes (1985),
reflected one relatively small, poorly designed case study of 25 junior and senior high
schools conducted by Oakes herself 8 years previously.  The "research" against ability

grouping for middle school students cited by George (1988), reflected, primarily, the
research synthesis conducted by Slavin (1987) of

one

of four forms of ability grouping as

it applied to elementary students. Johnson and Johnson (1990) claims supporting mixed-
ability cooperative learning for gifted students were based on one small, poorly designed
quasi-experimental study comparing the immediate and long-term retention effects of a
five-day treatment on handicapped, regular, and "gifted" (no specification of how these
students were identified) students (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1982). References to the
research supporting acceleration for gifted students by Slavin (1988) have reflected
primarily on the case studies of the Center for Talented Youth involving subject
acceleration in mathematics, with no consideration of previous reviews of research or
meta-analyses.

The "I Found This Study" Approach

For what also might be called the "mailbox effect," this approach is frequently

used by an educational decision maker or writer with a point of view based on personal
experience or "gut" feelings, who locates a couple of research studies supporting this
view, and disseminates them to superiors, colleagues, and school staff.  Decisions are
then made to change practice based on this limited and possibly biased research base.
The problems with such an approach are obvious.  There are few practices in education,
let alone in gifted education, that  are comprised of a research base of two.  With 700
studies on ability grouping and 300 each on cooperative learning and acceleration, such
an approach cannot rationally be accepted as appropriate representation of the "research."
Even when research reviewers have attempted to keep "box scores" of all the studies on a
practice which support or negate that practice and then have "voted" the box with the
highest number of confirming or negating studies the winner, concerns have been raised
about the validity of the conclusions drawn (Light & Smith, 1971; Jackson, 1980; Cook
& Leviton, 1980; Hedges & Olkin, 1984; Slavin, 1984).  As Mark Twain quipped in his

Autobiography

, "The thirteenth stroke of a clock is not only false of itself, but casts grave

doubts on the credibility of the preceding twelve."

The "Apples and Oranges" Approach

Educators coined the term, "apples and oranges" approach when the technique of

meta-analysis was first introduced (Glass, 1976).  This approach involves an attempt to
collect all experimental and comparative research studies conducted on a strategy and to
average across all the studies to calculate a mean "Effect Size."  The Effect Size is first
calculated for each study included, using the formula, ES = Me-Mc / s, where M
represents the mean scores, respectively, of the experimental (e) and control (c) groups
and summarizes the general direction and degree of outcome between the two groups.
These individual Effect Sizes are then averaged to calculate the mean Effect Size across
all the studies.  In many cases, this averaging process is done regardless of the quality of
individual research studies included, the sample sizes in the studies, the period in which
the studies were conducted, or the specific form of the strategy.  Such was the case for
the first uses of meta-analysis in gifted education.  Kulik and Kulik's (1982) synthesis of
research on ability grouping with secondary students included studies of within-class and

between-class grouping, added these studies across junior high and senior high students,
and made no allowance for size of sample or differences in research design (for example,
three track XYZ studies were combined with studies comparing students of like ability
enrolled or not enrolled in special programs). The Kuliks' subsequent meta-analysis on
acceleration for gifted students (1984) included studies of grade skipping and curriculum
compression across students at all grade levels, and again made no allowance for size of
sample or strength of research design.

Other examples of the "apples and oranges" approach as it applies to syntheses on

grouping issues abound.  For example, the discrepancies between the cooperative
learning meta-analyses of Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, and Skon (1981) and
Slavin (1990) are generally due to differences in the selection of which studies can be
collectively averaged to produce the "Effect Size" metric.  Because Slavin disallowed
studies with a cooperative learning treatment of fewer than 20 class periods,
nonrandomized or unmatched assignments to treatment, use of criterion measures for
which treatment but not control groups had access to the content, and studies in which
nonacademic practices (e.g., golf swing) were compared, only nine of the Johnson et al.
studies overlapped those in his best-evidence synthesis (Slavin, 1990).  Despite the
potential for misinterpreting the effects of such a synthesis of research, there can be a
greater degree of validity in drawing conclusions about the effects of an instructional
practice when care has been taken to use well-defined a priori criteria for inclusion in a
meta-analysis.

Concerns have also been raised about the limitations of the measures used in

those studies which can be quantitatively combined that assess achievement.  Most often,
standardized tests of achievement have been used, with no documentation that the tests
actually measure what was taught in the experimental study or that the tests provided
generous enough ceilings or were given at out-of-grade levels to differentiate for
achievement at the extremes of ability.  For instance, no difference in achievement might
be the conclusion drawn about gifted students who were ability grouped if they and their
equally gifted controls had both scored at the ceiling of the criterion measure used to
assess differences in achievement.  Likewise, there is some concern that achievement
may be measured only in part by standardized tests.  Grouping outcomes as measured by
achievement gains on standardized tests is an extremely limited perspective when
viewing the goals of and experiences provided in programs for the gifted and talented.
Among the many meta-analyses described in this report, only Vaughan's (1990) meta-
analysis of enrichment pullout programs appears to have taken these concerns into
account.

The Effect Size metric translates easily into understandable classroom application.

An Effect Size of +.30, generally accepted as indicative of moderate, but practically
significant effects, would indicate any or all of the following interpretations:

The improvement (approximately three months' additional achievement)
of the experimental group over the control group on a grade equivalent
score scale (Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981).

The superior performance of approximately 30% of the experimental
group over the control group on the criterion measure (Wolf, 1986).

The difference in standard deviation scores between groups of
approximately one-third of the standard deviation unit higher for the
experimental group (Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981).

The equivalent position of a school year's teaching efforts - experimental
students were taught in three years what the control students would
accomplish in four (Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981).

The Best-Evidence Approach

The best-evidence approach uses collection and calculation procedures similar to

those  for meta-analysis, but once all studies have been collected, the reviewer
categorizes them by instructional variation and selects the strongest studies for each
variation to synthesize, usually using the median rather than the mean Effect Size as the
metric for reporting.  A test of homogeneity of effects is used to establish what will be
considered the "best evidence" studies.  Proposed by Slavin (1986), this approach
combines the strengths of meta-analytic and more traditional narrative reviews.  Research
designs other than quasi-experimental and causal-comparative can be included and
sample sizes can be statistically weighted.  Slavin noted:

The best-evidence synthesis...incorporates the quantification and systematic
literature search methods of meta-analysis with the detailed emphasis of critical
issues and study characteristics of the best traditional reviews in an attempt to
provide a thorough and unbiased means of synthesizing research and providing
clear and useful conclusions. (p. 10)

Criticisms of the best-evidence approach have primarily been leveled at: (a) the

role of the synthesizer as both "judge and jury" of the research base (Guskey, 1987); (b)
the effects various differences in inclusion criteria might have on synthesis conclusions
(Abrami, Cohen, & d'Apollonia, 1988); (c) the dependence on "dated" studies (Hiebert,
1987); and (d) potential neglect of the conclusions to examine the conceptual adequacy of
the studies included for synthesis (Gamoran, 1987). All but the first criticism have also
been leveled at the meta-analytic approach to research (Abrami, Cohen, & d'Apollonia,
1988). It becomes apparent that a thoughtful reader of the best-evidence synthesis must
remain vigilant to the possibility of these errors occurring, despite the potential this
approach has for drawing generalizations about the specific effects of given educational
practices.

This approach has been used by Slavin to synthesize research on ability grouping

for elementary and secondary students (1987, 1990), although all studies comparing
grouped gifted students with nongrouped gifted students were eliminated from the
analysis. Slavin has also used this approach to synthesize research on the academic
effects of cooperative learning (1990). The approach has also been used by Rogers
(1991) to synthesize research on 12 accelerative options for gifted students, several of
which involve the grouping by ability of gifted and talented learners.

In addressing the research on grouping (enrichment, acceleration, cooperative

learning) there have been 13 major syntheses of research that use the meta-analysis or
best-evidence approach.  While acknowledging the potential pitfalls of these approaches
to research, the remainder of this paper will draw conclusions about the issues relating to
grouping gifted and talented students for instruction.  In other words, this paper will
attempt to conduct a meta-evaluative synthesis of the research syntheses on grouping.
The 13 syntheses are:

Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary

schools: Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research.

Review of

Educational Research

, 415-435.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence and

interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous
individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research.

Review of Research in Education, 53,

415-424.

Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981).

Effects of cooperative, competitive, or individualistic goal structures on
achievement: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 89

(1), 47-62.

Kulik, C-L. C. (1985).

Effects of inter-class ability grouping on achievement and

self-esteem

. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American

Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Kulik, C-L C., & Kulik, J. A. (1984).

Effects of ability grouping on elementary

school pupils: A meta-analysis

. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Psychological Association, Ontario, Canada.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary

school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings.

American

Educational Research Journal, 19,

415-428.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on

students.

Review of Educational Research, 54,

409-425.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1990). Ability grouping and gifted students. In

N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.),

Handbook of gifted education

, (pp.

178-196). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Rogers, K. B. (1991).

A best-evidence synthesis of the research on accelerative

options for gifted students.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University

of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping: A best-evidence synthesis.

Review of

Educational Research, 57,

293-336.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary

schools: A best-evidence synthesis.

Review of Educational Research, 60,

471-499.

Slavin, R. E. (1990).

Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Vaughn, V. (1990).

Meta-analysis of pull-out programs in gifted education

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

In general, it can be stated that the integration of these 13 analyses should provide
substantial evaluation of the positive academic, socialization, and psychological
adjustment effects of grouping strategies upon gifted and talented students. Glass (1976)
noted that "the integration of research studies...should be valued more highly than many
forms of original research..." (p. 353). "This endeavor deserves higher priority now than
adding a new experiment or survey to the pile..." (p. 4).

SECTION TWO: PROBLEMS AND ISSUES RELATED TO GROUPING

Even a cursory review of educational publications reveals a growing concern,

perhaps even a few false assumptions about grouping practices in general, as well as
questions about the impact of grouping upon various levels of ability, descriptions of the
benefits of mixed-ability cooperative grouping, and disquietude about the emotional and
social effects of grouping for acceleration.  Particular attention has been given to:  (a)
academic achievement and self-esteem; (b) teacher/student expectations; (c) racial/social
discrimination and mobility; (d) instructional quality; and (e) social cohesion.  In the
subsections that follow, each of these variables will be more fully described in terms of
the concerns or assumptions related to ability grouping, cooperative learning and
acceleration.

It should be stressed that these concerns and assumptions may not

however,

bear any relationship to actual research

, as Section Three will show. It must

be noted that although the concerns will be listed in Section Two, they will not be
directly addressed in terms of the research until the end of Section Three of the paper
(Appendix B).

Concerns/Assumptions Often Raised About Academic Achievement

and Self-Esteem

There appear to be five major achievement and esteem concerns or assumptions

about grouping for enrichment or acceleration and cooperative grouping.

Ability grouping

for enrichment programs does not result in achievement

benefits for gifted learners. If gifted learners benefit academically while
grouped, it is due to factors other than grouping, such as individual
motivation to achieve, differentiated curricular materials, and specially
trained teachers. Ability grouping for regular instruction may, however,
be directly responsible for decreased academic achievement, loss of
academic ground, and loss of ambition to succeed in school among
average and low-ability learners.

Ability grouping

for enrichment programs tends to lead to inflated

opinions of capability for the gifted. Ability grouping for regular
instruction may lead to lowered self-esteem for average and low-ability
learners.

Cooperative learning

for regular instruction (mixed ability) provides

greater academic benefits for students of all levels of ability than when
students must work individualistically or in a competitive environment.
The gifted, in particular, by being required to help others master materials
and concepts, gain both cognitively and academically.

Cooperative learning

for regular instruction (mixed ability) improves the

academic self-concept of all learners, including the gifted.

Acceleration

of the gifted student leads to problems with self-esteem and

psychological maladjustment due to the comparative emotional
immaturity of the accelerant.

Concerns/Assumptions Often Raised About Teacher/Student Expectations

Eight concerns or assumptions surround teacher and student expectations for

achievement and esteem when various grouping practices are employed.

Teacher expectations when gifted students are

grouped

for enrichment are

realistic; that is, those students can benefit from the enrichment provided.
Teachers also suspect that most learners in their classrooms could benefit
from this enrichment.

Teacher expectations for students of different ability levels vary
considerably when students are

grouped

by ability

for regular instruction:

Teachers of low-ability

tracks

tend to underestimate the ability of their

students, thereby spending inordinate time on drill and practice and
teaching-for-mastery instructional techniques.

Student expectations for achievement are dampened by placement in
average or low-ability

tracks

. They tend to give up on trying to master

challenging content.

Students' self-esteem suffers when they are placed in average or low-
ability t

racks

. They perceive that a stigma has been attached to their

group placement.

cooperative grouping

using mixed-ability groups, teachers expect that

slower learners will learn from the high achievers with whom they have
been placed; hence, there is the expectation that all children will learn the
same quantity of material in the same period of time, and the climate for
learning will become more "academic."

cooperative grouping

there is the expectation that when all members

of a group "sink or swim" together, the self-esteem of all group members
will improve as the group succeeds.

Teachers expect that children who have been

accelerated

will have some

difficulty with higher grade level materials and will become "average"
achieving students when compared with older-aged classmates.

Teachers expect that the self-esteem of an

accelerated

group of students

will be damaged by the need to compete full-time with older-aged
classmates.

Concerns/Assumptions Often Raised About Racial and Social

Discrimination, Mobility

There are six concerns or assumptions that focus on whether or not grouping for

enrichment, acceleration or for cooperative learning incorporate discriminatory practices.

Students placed in high ability

groups

for which challenging and enriched

curriculum is planned tend to be middle class or higher, white students;
low-ability groups tend to contain proportionately higher numbers of
lower social class and culturally diverse students than found in the general

school population. Educational decision-makers may have racial and
social class stereotypes that affect their placement and grouping decisions.

Once students are placed in an ability

track

, that placement is rarely

changed upwards; students are more likely to move down a track than to
progress up. The difference in ability becomes greater the longer students
are grouped, with low ability students having no opportunity to catch up
on the skills and knowledge base presented to the high-track students.
Hence, racial and economic segregation/stratification becomes entrenched.

Students placed in a high ability

track

are perceived by teachers and other

students as the "in group", while students placed in low ability "tracks" are
considered the "outgroup." A social stigma is placed on slower learners,
and the status of faster learners is enhanced in grouped situations.

Recognizing and

grouping

for individual differences in ability and

providing differentiated instruction to match those differences is
undemocratic: It allows some students to get ahead in life's "rat race."

Students who are

cooperatively grouped

for racial and ability balance

acquire positive attitudes toward all group members.

Gifted students will be required as adults to deal with all segments of the
population, particularly if they are in leadership roles;

cooperative

grouping

with racial and ability balance helps prepare gifted students for

such roles as well as to help them acquire appropriate attitudes toward
others with "differences."

Concerns/Assumptions Often Raised About Instructional Quality

Five concerns or assumptions have been raised about the influence of grouping

practices upon instructional quality, that is, upon the quality of teaching and the scope of
instructional practices in the classroom.

Teachers tend to interact differently with students they perceive as having
more or less ability. Teachers in low ability

tracks

tend to spend a great

deal of class time on discipline and behavior control. Teachers in high
ability tracks provide more "opportunity to learn" time for students, due to
better attendance rates and higher motivation to learn among these
students.

Instruction in low

ability groups

tends to be delivered through drill and

practice or teaching for mastery, and with the use of unimaginative and
unchallenging worksheets or other learning materials. Instruction in high
ability groups relies more on discovery learning, exposure to abstract
ideas, and discussion with a focus on problem solving and creative
production as intended learning outcomes. The knowledge and skills
taught vary by group, with the high ability groups receiving "high status"
knowledge and the low ability groups receiving vocational knowledge
only.

"Better" teachers are rewarded by being assigned the high

ability groups

and honors classes, while less experienced and less effective teachers are

relegated to low ability groups and remedial classes. These "better"
teachers are not only more instructionally effective, but show more
enthusiasm for learning, model the value of learning, and genuinely like
their students. Such is not the case with teachers assigned to low ability
groups.

Whole group

instructional delivery (i.e., all learners use the same

materials for the same length of time as in group-paced mastery learning,
direct instruction, companion reading, Chicago Mastery Learning
programs, etc.) results in higher instructional quality for all learners.

Teachers can better meet the needs of all students by

grouping

them by

achievement level. Grouping makes it easier on teachers. The real
challenge is to meet those needs in mixed-ability classes.

Concerns/Assumptions Often Raised About Social Cohesion

Three concerns or assumptions have centered on the social cohesion of

classrooms when ability grouping is the general practice.

Students in high

ability groups

tend to develop healthy social

relationships with others in their group as a result of their common
learning experiences and social cognition.  Students in low ability groups
tend to form social relationships with some of the peers in their group, but
without appropriate social modeling, such relationships are detrimental.
There is also more disharmony in low ability classes.  Students in such
classes don't work toward a common educational goal.

Social cohesion, perceptions of peer support, and social self-concept
improve dramatically among all ability levels when learners are

cooperatively grouped

Students who have been

accelerated

will not be accepted into the social

network of their new class; they will stand out as "different" and therefore,
socially unacceptable.

SECTION THREE: RESEARCH SYNTHESIS

Ability Grouping Research

Eight research syntheses have focused on the various effects of ability grouping

for regular or enriched/remedial instruction and have been conducted by James and Chen-
Lin Kulik (1982, 1984, 1985, 1990), Robert Slavin (1987, 1990), Adam Gamoran and
Mark Berends (1987), and Vicki Vaughn (1990).

Research Syntheses by James Kulik and Chen-Lin Kulik

The Kuliks have provided the earliest and most recent syntheses of the research

on ability grouping. Their initial studies (1982, 1984) focused on specific school levels,
that is, secondary or elementary, but their last two syntheses have looked across K-12
populations in calculating the general effects of grouping for regular instruction and
grouping for enrichment or remediation.

Secondary Grouping Research

. In a meta-analysis (1982) of 52 comparative or

quasi-experimental studies carried out in secondary schools, 36 of the studies reported
high achievement gains for grouped classes, 8 of which were statistically significant.  Of
the studies analyzed by the Kuliks in this synthesis, 33 involved the study of ability
grouping in junior high and 19 in senior high.  The average Effect Size was +.10,
implying that, in a typical class, the performance of ability grouped students was raised
by one-tenth of a standard deviation unit or from the 50th to the 54th percentile of
achievement.  When material was specifically tailored to the grouped classes by specific
subjects, the average Effect Size across these studies was +.15.  Ability grouping for
science and social studies resulted in the largest average Effect Sizes (+.18, +.11,
respectively).  Studies that focused on the effects of grouping upon an individual ability
level indicated smaller Effect Sizes for achievement for slow and average learners (+.02,
respectively), but in the 14 studies on grouping for high ability only, the average Effect
Size was +.33.

In terms of gains in self-esteem, the average Effect Size was +.01, implying that

the decision to group or not to group has little effect on students' self-esteem.  For the
eight studies looking at gains in positive attitudes toward subject matter, the Kuliks were
able to conclude with statistical confidence that grouping had a positive effect on student
attitudes toward the subject(s) in which they were grouped (ES=+.37).  A mean Effect
Size of +.09, albeit very small, on attitude toward school favored grouped classes across
the 11 studies.  Based on these findings, the Kuliks drew the following conclusions about
ability grouping at the secondary level:

ACHIEVEMENT: ... ability grouping had only trivial effects on the

achievement of average and below average students. This finding... does not
support the view of other researchers who claim that grouping has unfavorable
effects on the achievement of low-aptitude students. The effect of grouping is

near-zero on the achievement of average and below average students; it is not
negative.

ATTITUDES: ... the effects of grouping were clearer on students'

attitudes than on student achievement. Students assigned to grouped classes for
work in certain subject areas (e.g., mathematics or English composition)
responded more favorably to these subjects than did similar students assigned to
heterogeneous classes... Effects of grouping on attitudes toward school and on
self-concept were also positive, but these effects were small and less consistent.
(pp. 425-426)

Elementary Grouping Research

. In 1984, the Kuliks produced a meta-analysis

of the effects of ability grouping upon elementary school students.  The results were
similar.  Of the 28 studies that looked at the achievement effects of organizing
classrooms in graded schools to combine children who are similar in ability, 20 favored
the grouped condition, 13 significantly.  The average Effect Size for the 28 studies may
be interpreted as a raise in grouped students' scores on achievement tests by +.19 standard
deviation units.  This implies that in the typical study, grouping accounted for
approximately two months' additional  performance on a grade equivalent scale of
achievement.  For those studies that measured the effects of grouping for gifted students,
however, the average Effect Size was even higher (ES=+.49).  For the nine studies that
dealt with self-concept, the effect was trivial.  The Kuliks did not synthesize the research
on attitude toward school or subject matter in the 1984 study.

K-12 Grouping Research

. In their third and fourth syntheses (1985, 1990) the

Kuliks analyzed the research on inter-class ability grouping across elementary and
secondary schools.  Inter-class ability grouping was defined as the practice of assigning
students to classes, tracks, or streams, according to ability.  (In their first two meta-
analyses, inter- and intra-class grouping studies were combined.)  In the 1985 study,
grouping research was collected on whole class grouping in secondary schools, such as
an "honors" class in English, and in elementary classrooms when all students of one
ability level were assigned to the same class.

In the 1985 meta-analysis, 85 studies were found that compared inter-class ability

grouping with traditional classroom instruction, 40 at the elementary level and 45 at
secondary.  Of the 78 studies analyzed that dealt with comparative achievement gains, the
average Effect Size for grouped classrooms was +.15, the equivalent of increasing
achievement test scores by 1.5 months on a grade equivalent scale.  Studies that looked
specifically at an individual ability level found differing Effect Sizes according to ability.
Low-ability groups (for which there were only four reported studies) had zero Effect
Size, suggesting that low-ability levels are neither harmed nor helped by grouping
arrangements.  Studies on average learners indicated an average of +.04 Effect Size, in
other words, a near-zero effect; studies on high-ability students placed in honors classes
resulted in an Effect Size average of +.30.  Assignment of high-ability students to classes
without systematically enriched subject matter, however, resulted in an average Effect
Size of +.12.  The average Effect Size of grouping on the self-esteem of students was

near zero, despite small but differing self-esteem Effect Sizes by ability level (ES (high
ability) = -.14, ES (average ability) = -.16, ES (low ability) = +.16). Kulik concluded:

... [S]chool programs providing special treatment for talented students usually
produce good results.  The talented students who are in these programs almost
invariably gain academically from them and they do not become smug or self-
satisfied as a result of their participation.  If anything, talented students may
become slightly more modest about their abilities when they are taught in
homogeneous groups...This meta-analysis provided little support for the common
belief that grouping programs have negative effects on slower learners.  On the
contrary, we found that homogeneous grouping programs often helped to improve
the self-esteem of slow learners, and these programs may have also had small
positive effects on their achievement.  (p. 4)

In the Kuliks' most recent meta-analysis of between-class grouping, as reported in

Handbook of Gifted Education

(1990), the Kuliks located 49 controlled "multitrack" or

"XYZ" studies of students taught in homogeneous classes compared to students taught in
mixed-ability classes.  None of the studies in this meta-analysis involved separate
programs or classes for gifted students, although it may be assumed that children
assigned to the high ability track in these studies may have included a few gifted students.
The mean Effect Size across these multitrack studies was +.06 standard deviation units,
equivalent to a gain on a grade equivalent scale of one-half month.  However, when the
Kuliks analyzed the results of the 40 studies which reported separate effects by ability
level, there were differential effects:  +.12 for high-ability, +.04 for average ability, and
zero for low-ability students.

The Kuliks synthesized the 15 studies among the 49 that dealt with self-esteem,

finding that in only 6 of the 15 did grouping appear to produce more positive self-
concepts.  The average overall effect of grouping in the 15 studies was to decrease self-
esteem scores by -.06 standard deviations, considered trivial.  Again, when the separate
self-esteem changes were reported in the 15 studies by ability level, only low-ability
students produced more positive self-concepts when grouped, although the changes were
not considered meaningful:  Effect Sizes for high-ability students were -.14, for average
ability students   (-.16), and for low-ability students (+.16).

In the 1990 analysis, the Kuliks looked once again at changes in attitude toward

subject matter and attitude toward school. All six studies on subject matter attitude
showed positive effects, with a mean Effect Size of +.27. Across the four studies of
attitude toward school, the mean Effect Size was +.04.

Thus far, each of the Kuliks' meta-analyses focused on the comparative ability

level differences in academic achievement and self-esteem for between-class-only or
between-class and within-class grouping when all students at a grade level (or levels)
were grouped according to locally developed criteria for placement, termed multitrack or
XYZ programs. These grouping arrangements were not established to provide
differentiated instruction for gifted learners. The 49 studies reported evaluative results

for which grouping made the delivery of instruction easier for teachers to manage with a
narrowed continuum of ability. The Kuliks were also interested, however, in the effects
of grouping programs designed especially to meet the needs of gifted and talented
students. Such programs included separate classrooms for the gifted and gifted "clusters"
within an otherwise traditional classroom.

Of 25 controlled studies of separate classes for gifted students, 19 reported higher

achievement in the homogeneously grouped situation, 11 of which were statistically
significant.  The average Effect Size across the 25 studies was +.33.  Another way to
interpret this effect is that in the typical study of separate classrooms for the gifted,
approximately 63% of the special class gifted students outperformed the typical gifted
student in the mixed-ability class.  In actuality, the range of Effect Sizes across the 25
studies was broad (-.27 to +1.25), great enough to lead the Kuliks to conclude that factors
other than grouping itself must have been responsible for the reported outcomes.  Slavin
(1987) among others, has argued that the differentiated expectations, outcomes, teacher
quality, curriculum, and even student motivation are more likely responsible for the
achievement levels experienced by students in these programs.

Self-esteem (global) was examined in 6 of the 25 studies, with 4 studies reporting

more favorable self-concepts in the experimental condition.  The average Effect Size
across the 6 studies was +.02.  Only three of the separate gifted classroom studies
examined attitude toward subject matter or school.  For subject matter, the one study
reported a trivial effect, and for the two studies on attitude toward school, strong positive
effects were reported.

Grouping the gifted as a "cluster" within a heterogeneous classroom provided the

real surprise effect.  Of the four studies located by the Kuliks, all reported positive effects
for academic achievement, three of which were statistically significant.  The mean Effect
Size for these studies was +.62.  From the results of these meta-analyses, the Kuliks
concluded:

The evidence is clear that high-aptitude and gifted students benefit academically
from programs that provide separate instruction for them.  Academic benefits are
positive but small when the grouping is done as a part of a broader program for
students of all abilities.  Benefits are positive and moderate in size in programs
that are specially designed for gifted students...Evidence is less clear about
noncognitive outcomes of programs of separate instruction for high-aptitude and
gifted students.  Despite their importance, such outcomes are not studied
frequently by educational researchers, and only tentative conclusions can be
drawn.  One of these conclusions is that ability-grouping programs have little or
no consistent overall effect on student self-esteem ...  (p. 191)

Research Syntheses by Robert Slavin

Robert Slavin's best-evidence syntheses of research on elementary grouping

arrangements (1987) and secondary grouping (1990) essentially draw the same

conclusions about tracking for all students as the Kuliks found in their separate analysis
of mixed track, XYZ studies.  The differences between his work and that of the Kuliks
has been his exclusion of all studies of ability grouping for gifted or special education
children.  He reasoned that the literature has been fairly well-analyzed for these special
ability groups and suggested that inherent in selection for a gifted or special education
group is the understanding that there will be significant differences in curriculum, class
size, resources available and goals, all of which are inseparable from the practice of
grouping itself.  In his ability grouping syntheses (1987, 1990), Slavin has added that the
selection process for special education programs may also influence study outcomes,
contending that students selected usually have stronger motivation to succeed, have fewer
behavioral or emotional problems that might interfere with learning, and these factors,
rather than the grouping arrangement, produce favorable achievement effects.
Conversely, Slavin's syntheses have been taken to task by numerous researchers for four
primary flaws: (1) differences in curriculum, class size, resources available and goals
contribute to the outcomes in all classrooms, not just in gifted or special education
classrooms--if grouping is not the "cause" of achievement gains for the latter classrooms,
then how can it be the "culprit" in  regular or traditional classrooms?; (2) the studies
included are primarily from the 1950s and 1960s and may not be generalizable to the
classrooms of the 1990s; (3) the studies are based on standardized achievement  tests,
which  may not measure what actually goes on in grouped situations and may not fully
assess the academic gains of higher achieving students due to low test ceilings and
possible regression to the mean for students who score at the extremes of these tests; and
(4) he draws strong conclusions about the merits or lack of merit about certain forms of
ability grouping based on very few studies, conclusions not found to be warranted in
some cases by subsequent researchers (Kulik & Kulik, 1990).

Slavin's two best-evidence syntheses must be mentioned for two reasons: (1) they

are frequently referred to by less research-oriented educational writers; and (2) Slavin
looked more closely than his predecessors at the type of grouping arrangement in the
studies located.  Hence, despite their lack of applicability to educational practice for the
gifted and talented, it is important for all educators to know of their content and
conclusions.  In addition to the more permanent ability grouping, previously called
"tracking," Slavin identified three short-term ability grouped arrangements in the
elementary and secondary grades:  (1) regrouping for specific subject instruction, in
which students remain in heterogeneous classes most of the day and are regrouped by
achievement/performance level within grade levels for reading and/or math; (2) Joplin
Plan, in which students are regrouped across grade lines for reading; and (3) within-class
ability grouping, whereby the classroom teacher divides students temporarily into two or
more groups by achievement level in a subject area.

Secondary Grouping Research

. Slavin's (1990) best-evidence synthesis of

research on ability-grouped classes at the secondary level included 29 controlled studies,
17 of which included middle school/junior high student samples (grades 5-8) and 17 of
which included senior high student samples (9-12). In measuring achievement, 12 of the
studies assessed achievement across all subjects and 17 studies reported achievement
effects for 1-4 specific subjects. The reported median Effect Size across the 20

comparative and 9 case studies was zero. Slavin could find no discernible patterns
among the findings that suggested advantages or disadvantages of grouping by subject,
length of time, number of classes for which grouping took place, geographic setting, or
age level. It is important to note that none of the studies included in this synthesis were
conducted after the early 1970s when "tracking" was no longer considered a legally
viable practice.

In this synthesis Slavin also reported Effect Sizes differentially by

achievement/ability level. Twenty-one of the 29 studies had presented separate data by
ability level, 15 of which were quantifiable. The median Effect Size for high achievers
was +.01, for average achievers -.08, and for low achievers, the median Effect Size was -
.02.

Slavin also located a few secondary studies which dealt with alternative grouping

arrangements, finding that there were no differences in achievement when students are
within-class ability grouped or cross-grade grouped at the middle/junior high/senior high
school levels. No studies of regrouping for specific instruction at the secondary level
were included in this synthesis.

Also studied were the ethnographic and correlational studies since the early

1970s, comparing the achievement of high track vs. low track students.  In general, these
studies have suggested that high achievers learn considerably more per year than do low
achievers in low tracks.  Slavin argued that the inherent initial differences in ability,
content background/course taking, motivation, and behavior cannot be adequately
controlled.  Two perceived limitations of this synthesis as noted by Slavin included:

... [A]lmost all studies reviewed here used standardized tests of unknown
relationship to what was actually taught.  It may be, for example that positive
effects of ability grouping for high achievers could be missed by standardized
tests because what these students are getting in enrichment or higher-order skills
is not assessed on the standardized measures, or that negative effects for low
achievers are missed because teachers of low-track classes are hammering away
at the minimum skills that are assessed on the standardized tests but ignoring
other content...[Another] limitation is the age of most of the studies reviewed.  It
is possible that schools, students, or ability grouping have changed enough since
the 1960s and 1970s to make conclusions from these and older studies tenuous.
(p. 493)

Elementary Grouping Research

. For self-contained homogeneous classes

based on achievement, Slavin (1987) located 17 studies, finding zero Effect Size,
indicating that assignment of elementary students to ability grouped classrooms does not
enhance achievement. There were no indications that high achievers were more likely to
benefit from this practice or that low achievers were more likely to suffer as a result of
full-time ability grouping.

Slavin's analysis of the seven studies on regrouping for specific subjects (the

practice whereby students remain in their heterogeneous classes most of the day and are
regrouped by achievement/performance level within grade levels for reading and/or
math) found a general Effect Size for reading at zero, although Venezky and Winfield
(1979) previously reported that "successful" schools tended to emphasize homogeneous
grouping for reading, and Stallings (1978) reported that homogeneously grouped
remedial reading programs in secondary schools resulted in significantly higher reading
achievement gains.  One well-designed study (Provus, 1960), described in Slavin's
analysis, which dealt with regrouping for mathematics, found significant Effect Sizes for
differing performance levels (high achieving = +.79, average achieving = +.22, low
achieving = +.15) but only when students were given materials appropriate to their
established level of performance.  One study which measured the effects of regrouping
for both mathematics and reading resulted in a mean Effect Size of +.43 at the end of
three years; two years later, after the control group had also begun regrouping, the Effect
Size of the original experimental group was +1.20, a considerable cumulative advantage
of such a strategy (Morris, 1969).  Thus, there appears to be some evidence that
regrouping can be instructionally effective at the elementary level if the level and pace of
instruction is differentiated according to the achievement level of the regrouped class and
if students are not regrouped, according to Slavin, for more than 1-2 different subjects
during the school day.

The Joplin Plan (Floyd, 1954) can be considered an extension of regrouping for

reading, wherein regrouping takes place across grade levels.  This nongraded grouping in
subjects other than reading, it is more likely termed, "cross-grade grouping."  Slavin
located 14 controlled studies of this grouping strategy, 13 of which involved reading.
The mean Effect Size for reading was +.45; 10 studies reported positive outcomes and 3
reported neutral effects.  The one study on cross-grade grouping in mathematics resulted
in a similar Effect Size (+.46).  The general pattern of effects tended to become larger in
the upper elementary grades.  In no case did one subgroup gain in achievement at the
expense of another.

All eight studies of within-class ability grouping, the fourth grouping strategy

examined in the Slavin synthesis, involved the use of teacher-designated math ability
groups within the classroom.  One study also measured the effects of within-class
grouping in reading and spelling.  The mean Effect Size for this strategy was +.32, but for
five of the studies which had reported differential effects by ability, Slavin was able to
calculate the mean Effect Sizes by ability levels as well.  All subgroups appeared to gain:
high achievers (ES = +.41), average achievers (ES = +.27), low achievers (ES = +.65).
The only one of these studies that produced aberrant results was one in which the number
of within class groups was 4, rather than 2-3 (ES = +.07).  Slavin concluded that within-
class grouping for mathematics results in significant academic gains when the number of
groups is limited to 2-3.

The Kuliks (1990) have mentioned what appear to be several valid concerns with

Slavin's conclusions from this within-class ability grouping synthesis:

... Slavin (1987, 1988) has speculated that grouping has maximum positive effects
on student achievement when (1) it is done for only one or two subjects; (2)
students remain in mixed-ability classes most of the day; (3) grouping greatly
reduces heterogeneity in a specific skill; (4) group assignments are frequently
reassessed; and (5) teachers vary the level and pace of instruction according to
students' needs. We investigated each of these factors in this meta-analysis, and
we found no direct evidence that any of them were significantly related to
grouping effects. (p. 185)

Research Synthesis by Gamoran and Berends

In their synthesis of all survey and ethnographic research that has been conducted

on tracking in secondary schools, Gamoran and Berends (1987) analyzed the conclusions
of these two forms of research separately.  From the 10 American data sets used in 16
survey studies, the most consistent effect of tracking appeared to be subsequent
educational attainment:  Students in academic tracks were more likely to plan to attend
and to enroll in college.  When prior achievement was controlled for, findings about the
effects of tracking upon achievement were mixed. Among the four data sets that dealt
with this particular question, two suggested that high track students had achievement
advantages (Kerckhoff, 1986; Gamoran, 1987) and two suggested small, insignificant
differences in achievement by track (Project Talent, ETS).  Track differences were
greatest in mathematics and science, which was accounted for by differential course
taking, but similar mediating effects were not found for reading, vocabulary, writing or
civics achievement.  Gamoran and Berends concluded that the survey research remains
ambiguous concerning the measurement of within-school stratification because it has not
paid attention to the mechanisms through which the effects of tracking occur.  Merely
noting that there are x students per track in a school, who have taken x courses and have
x test scores and have x college plans, does not help educators to understand what might
be inherent instructional process differences, classroom interaction differences, or
student-teacher interaction differences which might lead to more or less achievement,
self-esteem, or attitude toward school.  As Hallinan (1990) noted:

Careful systematic research is currently underway by several social scientists
examining the interaction between the organizational practice of ability grouping
and the instructional process as it affects student opportunities to learn and
academic achievement. This research promises to be far more fruitful in
addressing the complex issues related to the effectiveness and equity of ability
grouping than previous studies that were limited in conceptualization, scope and
methodology. (pp. 503-504)

Gamoran and Berends' synthesis of ethnographic research on tracking

documented some focus on instructional effectiveness differences and equity issues.
Several observational studies were cited that have noted that instruction is conceptually
simplified and proceeds more slowly in lower tracks, and that slow pacing may be used
as a means for maintaining order. The researchers were also able to produce some
ethnographic evidence that the more experienced and more successful teachers are

disproportionately assigned to the higher tracks, and that teachers in higher track classes
have been observed to be more enthusiastic about their teaching, put more time and
energy into preparation, vary their methods of presentation more and use more
constructive criticism than teachers in lower track classes. Gamoran and Berends
concluded that the ethnographic research was consistent in these observed characteristics,
but, they noted, this research has failed to substantiate that there is a

significant

difference in instructional quality between tracks.

Research Synthesis by Vaughn

Vaughan's (1990) meta-analysis on gifted pull-out programs located nine

controlled studies reporting achievement outcomes (n=3, ES=+.65), critical thinking
differences (n=3, ES=+.44), creative thinking assessments (n=2, ES=+.32), and self-
concept effects (n=4, ES=+.11). These results tend to concur with the Kuliks' findings
for within class programs for gifted students.

The very positive Effect Sizes reported in Vaughan's research synthesis illustrate

one of the measurement issues in this research.  When measures are selected to reflect
what has been offered in the treatment condition (e.g., a test of academic achievement
when the pullout program has focused on extensions of the regular curriculum or a test of
critical thinking when the pullout program has taught critical thinking skills), Effect Sizes
are significant and positive.  It is possible that the small Effect Sizes reported in previous
syntheses may be due to the lack of  validity in instrument selection.  What students are
actually taught in their ability-grouped classes may not have been directly measured in
previous research.

Cooperative Learning Research

Three formal research syntheses have been conducted on academic and

nonacademic effects of mixed-ability cooperative learning for academic instruction
(Johnson, Johnson, & Maruyama, 1983; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon,
1981; Slavin, 1990). Additionally, Slavin (1990) has provided a "box score" of the
research studies on the nonacademic outcomes of cooperative learning.

Research Synthesis by Johnson, Johnson, and Maruyama

Johnson, Johnson, and Maruyama (1983) analyzed the research on the cooperative

learning effects of physical proximity and interaction on the social relationships of
ethnically diverse students, handicapped students, and ethnically similar and
nonhandicapped students. Ninety-eight studies, conducted between 1944-1984 yielded
251 reported outcomes. The researchers concluded that cooperation

without

intergroup

competition promoted greater interpersonal attraction among all three groups of students
than did interpersonal competition (i.e., each student competes against the rest of the
class members), working independently, or cooperation

with

intergroup competition (i.e.,

one cooperative group competes against other cooperative groups in the classroom).

In their meta-analysis of the 31 studies that compared the relative effects of

cooperative vs. individualistic treatments on majority and minority students, the mean
Effect Sizes of cross-ethnic attitudes suggested that cooperative learning tends to produce
substantially more positive cross-ethnic attitudes than do competitive practices (ES =
+.54) or than individualistic practices (ES= +.68).

Twenty-six studies compared the effects of cooperative vs. competitive and

cooperative vs. individualistic treatments on attitudes toward handicapped students.
Effect Sizes of +.86 (vs. competitive) and +.96 (vs. individualistic) indicated that
cooperative learning tends to produce significantly more positive attitudes toward
handicapped students than do competitive or individualistic practices in the classroom.

The researchers located 48 studies which compared the effects of cooperative vs.

competitive and cooperative vs. individualistic treatments in homogeneous subject
populations (ethnic/handicap status) on the variable of interpersonal attraction. The
Effect Sizes of +1.05 (vs. competitive) and +1.28 (vs. individualistic), were reported,
indicating that cooperative learning tends to produce significantly higher interpersonal
attraction (mutual liking and respect) among majority and nonhandicapped students than
do competitive or individualistic instructional practices.

In analyzing the possible moderating variables that may influence interpersonal

relationships, the researchers concluded that cooperation

without

competition promoted

greater interpersonal attraction in elementary and college students than in secondary
students, and cooperation

with

intergroup competition promotes greater interpersonal

attraction among older students in general. Subject area differences were also found:
Greater interpersonal attraction was produced for cooperative practices in mathematics,
psychology, and physical education than for language arts, science, and social studies.

Research Synthesis by Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, and Skon

In their meta-analysis (1981) of 122 studies comparing the relative academic effects

of cooperation

without

competition, cooperation

with

intergroup competition,

interpersonal competition, and individualistic learning on student productivity and
achievement, the researchers concluded that both forms of cooperative learning were
superior in their academic effects to interpersonal competition or independent learning. In
their analysis across the body of studies, the researchers reported a zero Effect Size for
academic effects when the two forms of cooperative learning were compared, an Effect
Size of +.78 when cooperative practices were compared to individualistic practices, and an
Effect Size, also of +.78, when cooperative learning and competitive practices were
compared.

These authors also attempted to analyze the moderating influences of other

variables upon academic achievement, small negative relationships were noted between
grade level and achievement in cooperative vs. competitive (r = -.20) and vs.
individualistic practices (r = -.07), suggesting that somewhat higher achievement will be
found in younger grades for cooperative practices. There were no differences among

practices for specific subject area achievement, but very small differences favoring
competitive and individualistic practices for low level tasks (such as rote decoding or
correcting) were found. No differences in practice appeared to affect other task types
(such as concept attainment, problem solving, categorization, memory, motor skill
development, predictions, etc.). Length of treatment was found to affect reported
outcomes, favoring cooperative learning when the shortest time spans were studied.

Research Synthesis by Robert Slavin

In a best-evidence synthesis of the research on cooperative learning conducted in

1990, Slavin set inclusion criteria that appear to have eliminated a large number of the
studies conducted on these practices. His criteria were: (1) experimental and control
groups being compared had to be studying the same material; (2) initial equivalence of
the comparison groups had to be established; (3) the treatment in cooperative learning
had to be at least 20 hours (4 weeks) long; and (4) achievement measures used in the
studies had to assess objectives taught to both the experimental and control groups.
These inclusion criteria appear to be important ones in consideration of research
evidence.

Using these criteria, however, only 68 studies qualified for synthesis. Across this

body of studies, representing nine forms of cooperative learning, the median Effect Size
for achievement was +.21.  Slavin's four cooperative methods had an overall Effect Size
for achievement of +.30, with Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT) being the form of
cooperative learning with the highest  effect (+.38), followed by Student Team
Achievement Divisions (STAD) at +.27.  No other forms of cooperative learning showed
more than even small effects for achievement:  Johnson's "Learning Together" (0),
Jigsaw (+.04), Group Investigation (+.12), other forms (+.06).  None of the studies
synthesized reported effects of cooperative learning on differing levels of ability.

Slavin used a vote counting or "box score" method for synthesizing the research

on nonacademic effects of cooperative learning and concluded that the practice:  (a)
promotes cross-racial friendships (20 studies, 19 positive); (b) encourages acceptance of
mainstreamed academically handicapped students (24 studies, 24 positive); (c)
encourages on-task behavior in emotionally disturbed students in self-contained
classrooms (2 studies); (d) enhances self-esteem (15 studies, 11 positive); (e) improves
proacademic peer norms (11 studies, 7 positive); (f) influences internal locus of control (8
studies); (g) increases time on-task and behavior (10 studies, 8 positive); (h) improves
liking of class or school (26 studies, 14 positive, 11 no difference, 1 improves for some
ethnic minorities but not others); (i) increases liking of classmates and/or feeling liked by
classmates (16 studies, 11 positive, 5 no difference); and (j) improves cooperation,
altruism, and perspective-taking (10 studies, 9 positive).  None of the studies reported
separate effects for high ability or gifted learners.  It should be noted that many of the
studies referenced for these nonacademic outcomes were not included as "best evidence"
in his synthesis of academic outcomes. In summary, Slavin concluded:

... [C]ooperative learning has been shown in a wide variety of studies to positively
influence a host of important noncognitive variables. Although not every study
has found positive effects on every noncognitive outcome, the overall effects of
cooperative learning on student self-esteem, peer support for achievement,
internal locus of control, time on-task, liking of class and of classmates,
cooperativeness, and other variables are positive and robust. (p. 53)

Research On Acceleration

Research Synthesis by James Kulik and Chen-Lin Kulik

In 1984, Kulik and Kulik conducted a meta-analysis of research since 1920 on

acceleration.  They attempted to answer the following four questions about acceleration:
(1) What are the effects of acceleration?; (2) Do the effects vary as a function of the
methodological features of study settings?; (3) Do different approaches to acceleration
have different effects on different students?; and (4) Do different approaches to
acceleration have different effects for different types of instructional outcomes?  Three
criteria were required for inclusion in the analysis:  (1) a quantitative report of the results;
(2) a comparison of an accelerated group of students with a nonaccelerated control group;
and (3) a match in aptitude between the accelerated and nonaccelerated groups.

The Kuliks located 21 reports of research, containing 26 different studies; thirteen

used a same-age control and 13 used an older-aged control group.  Each set of studies
was analyzed separately.  In all 13 studies with the same age controls, there was higher
student achievement for the accelerated group, with 9 of these studies yielding
statistically significant differences.  The mean Effect Size was +.88.  When accelerants
were compared to older students, accelerants scored significantly higher in two studies
and higher, although not significantly on three others.  In the remaining eight studies
achievement for the control students was greater; in two cases, the differences were
significant.  The mean Effect Size across the 13 studies was +.05, and the Kuliks
concluded that accelerated students do not differ in achievement from their older aged
controls.

Other outcome measures were also subjected to meta-analysis with no substantial

advantage or disadvantage for acceleration: (1) attitude toward school (ES =+.07 across
4 studies); (2) attitude toward subject (ES = +.02 on 4 studies); (3) effects on vocational
plans (ES = +.17, 6 studies); (4) participation in school activities (ES = -.13, 3 studies);
(5) popularity (ES = +.03, 5 studies); (6) adjustment (ES = -.03, 3 studies); and (7)
teacher-rated character judgments (ES = -.25, 3 studies).

The primary value of the Kuliks' analysis may be the results it provides for the

general practice of acceleration.  Three types of acceleration (all allowed the student to
progress more rapidly through the general curriculum, e.g., grade skipping) were
clustered into "curriculum compression" (n=18) or "other" (n=8).  Thus, the effects of
grade skipping or of subject acceleration were not separately calculated.  Some concern
might be raised about the Kuliks' conclusions that study features were not related to

outcomes:  The test of homogeneity used may not have been sensitive enough to
determine that different instructional practices of acceleration had been combined.  The
strength of this research synthesis was its clarity in procedural description and study
results.  In general, the Kuliks established that gifted students who accelerated into higher
grades performed as well as the talented, older students already in those grades.  Students
who were accelerated showed almost a year's advancement over gifted, same age
nonaccelerates.

Research Synthesis by Rogers

In 1991, Rogers conducted a best-evidence synthesis to objectively,

systematically and quantitatively describe the content of the research on 12 accelerative
programming options for gifted students. The 12 forms analyzed included:

Early Entrance to School

- the practice of allowing selected gifted

children, showing readiness to perform schoolwork, to enter kindergarten
or first grade one to two years earlier than the usual beginning age;

Grade Skipping

- the double promotion of a learner such that he/she

bypasses one or more grade levels;

Nongraded Classrooms

- the practice of placing learners in a classroom

undifferentiated by grade levels, allowing students to work through the
curricular materials at a pace appropriate to individual ability and
motivational level;

Curriculum Compression/Compacting

- the practice of tailoring the

regular curriculum of any or all subjects to the specific gaps, deficiencies
and strengths of an individual student, allowing the learner to "test out" or
bypass previously learned skills and/or content and focusing only on
mastery of deficient areas, thus moving more rapidly through the
curriculum offered in the educational setting;

Grade Telescoping

- a student's progress through junior high or high

school is reorganized to shorten the time of progression by one year; also
known as "rapid progression";

Concurrent Enrollment

- the practice of allowing a student to attend

classes in more than one building level during the same school year, e.g., a
junior high student attends high school for part of the school day and the
junior high classes for the remainder;

Subject Acceleration

- the practice of allowing an individual student to

bypass the usual progression of skills and content mastery in one subject
where great advancement or proficiency has been observed while
progressing at the regular pace through the remaining subject areas;

Advanced Placement

- the provision of courses with advanced or

accelerated content, usually at the secondary school level, which affords
the student an opportunity to take a national standardized test in order to
be given credit for completion of college-level coursework;

Mentorships

- the placement of a student with a subject matter expert or

professional for the purpose of advancing a specific interest or

proficiency, which cannot be provided within the regular educational
setting;

10.

Credit by Examination

- the provision of testing programs whereby the

student, after successful completion of a test, will be offered a specified
number of college credits upon entrance to college;

11.

Early Admission to College

- the practice of permitting a student to enter

college as a full-time student without completion of a high school
diploma; and,

12.

Combined Accelerative Options

- the provision of two or more forms of

accelerative options during the student's K-12 progression.

Of these 12 options, 6 have been implemented to some extent as small group

strategies for acceleration:

Nongraded Classroom

Curriculum

Compression/Compacting

Grade Telescoping

Subject Acceleration

Advanced

Placement

, and

Early Admission to College

. It is these forms that will be reported in

this paper. The reported outcomes for each form of acceleration were categorized as

Academic

[including subject achievement, grade equivalence, grade point average and

attitude toward learning, representing 63% of the outcomes reported],

Socialization

[including social development, peer interaction, leadership activities, extracurricular
participation, and social adjustment, representing 22% of the reported outcomes], and

Psychological

Adjustment

[including self-confidence, confidence, emotional

development, emotional health, creativity, risk-taking, and independence, representing
15% of the outcomes].

For the 11 studies on

Nongraded Classroom

, ES (

Academic

) = +.38, ES

(

Socialization

) = +.02, and ES (

Psychological Adjustment

) = +.11, suggesting a

significant academic effect of nongraded classrooms for gifted students, but only trivial,
positive effects of this practice on their socialization and psychological adjustment.
Analysis of the eight

Curriculum Compression/Compacting

studies produced a

substantial Effect Size for academic outcomes only: ES = +.45. None of the studies of
this programming option had addressed either social or psychological issues. The

Grade

Telescoping

studies (n=23) reported ES (

Academic

) = +.56, ES (

Socialization

) = +.22,

and ES (

Psychological Adjustment

) = -.06, suggesting that academic achievement,

when students are allowed to complete three years' junior high curriculum in two years or
four years' high school curriculum in three years, is substantial. A small improvement in
socialization may also occur with this practice, and there is a trivial, negative effect on
self-concept.

Analysis of studies of

Subject Acceleration

(n=24 studies) resulted in reported

Effect Sizes for ES (

Academic

) = +.49 and ES (

Psychological Adjustment

) = -.16. No

socialization outcomes were reported across this research body. The studies suggest that
there is a substantial academic gain when students are allowed to move ahead rapidly in a
specific subject area, but this may be accompanied by a small, negative effect on self-
concept. The 22 studies of

Advanced Placement

resulted in ES (

Academic

) = +.29, ES

(

Socialization

) = +.24, and ES (

Psychological Adjustment

) = +.07, suggesting that

there is a moderate academic and socialization gain but only a trivial improvement in

self-concept. This set of results was somewhat surprising, considering the strong
evidence of significant academic gain for ability grouped classes, of which Advanced
Placement might be considered a variation of practice. It is possible that the general
measures used did not reflect the actual learning that took place in Advanced Placement
classes, thereby leading to only a moderate difference in academic achievement and
socialization.

The 29 studies of

Early Admission to College

were included in this synthesis

also because almost every study reported on large groups of students who participated in
this option of allowing students to skip their last year of high school to enter college
early. A similar pattern to other forms of acceleration was reported: ES (

Academic

) =

+.44, ES (

Socialization

) = -.06, and ES (

Psychological Adjustment

) = +.16, suggesting

that the academic gains of this practice are considerable, but the slightly negative
socialization and small positive gain in self-concept are insignificant.

The researcher concluded that for the academic outcomes of most forms of

acceleration-based grouping, the picture was fairly clear, but for socialization and
psychological outcomes, much still needs to be learned.  Rogers (1991) suggested that
there appears to be a paradox in these findings:  Acceleration is often rejected by
practitioners on socialization or psychological grounds, when in fact such outcomes have
been scantily researched.  It would appear that this synthesis laid to rest two major
misconceptions about acceleration.  The first misconception has been that "acceleration is
acceleration," that is, all forms of acceleration are basically the same.  As Rogers' study
showed, each of the accelerative options had a very different pattern of outcomes for
gifted learners.  Hence, individual decisions about accelerating must continue to be the
norm, although more attention may be placed on matching the child to certain forms of
acceleration, depending upon his/her learning, social, and psychological characteristics
and needs.  The second misconception has been that acceleration may have negative
consequences for gifted learners.  In fact, the synthesis suggested that there were minimal
social and emotional effects for the majority of accelerative options.

Summary

Just about 30 years ago, the issues surrounding ability grouping of the gifted

underwent a debate similar to the one experienced in the late 1980s. In 1962 A. Harry
Passow wrote a classic article for

Educational Forum

, entitled "The Maze of the

Research on Ability Grouping." The maze Passow described has not been greatly
transformed nor has it disappeared since that time, but has, instead, become even more
complex. Passow listed eight difficulties which educators were confronted with in their
attempts to generalize from the research on grouping:

Studies vary extensively in their scope and purpose. Some describe
immediate rather than long-term effects, some describe effects on an
individual learner while others look at general effects upon students in a
district or state, most focused on math or reading outcomes alone, and

very few assessed grouping effects on personal growth or social
development.

There is great variety in the sample sizes and number of comparative
groups involved from study to study. Depending upon the study design,
samples have ranged from 6 to over 2,000.

Duration of the grouping treatment varies considerably. The studies have
ranged from immediate assessment of a one-time treatment to
retrospective studies of effects of the treatment after students have left the
K-12 school system.

Variation exists in study design and in sample selection. Rarely have
studies been conducted in which random assignment to treatment and
control was possible, nor have the criteria for designation as "gifted"
always been clearly defined and operationalized; in cases where the
definitions were clear, the usual criterion has been the single score
produced on an intelligence test, highly debatable as the best means for
identifying giftedness.

Inadequate attention to what occurs when students are ability grouped for
instruction. Few studies have documented actual differences in
instructional process and in materials.

Variation in teacher deployment is evident within this body of studies. In
some cases the same instructors were used for treatment and control
situations but in most cases, no attempts were made to equate teachers
based on their skills, knowledge, personal characteristics, and
backgrounds.

Differences in how effects were measured contributes to the confusion on
actual outcomes of grouping. Although this is less of a problem today
with the advent of meta-analytical statistical procedures, it is difficult to
determine which measure - a self-rating scale, an observational checklist, a
teacher-made test, a performance-based assessment, a portfolio, or a
standardized achievement test provides the clearest assessment of
academic outcomes.

Few studies have evaluated the effects of grouping on teachers and school
administrators. There is little documentation other than superficial survey
research that grouping really has facilitated differentiated instruction.

While we have acquired a much larger base and can use its quantitative results to

average across variations in sample size, study design, criterion measures, and treatment
duration using the metric of Effect Size, much of what Passow described as the
difficulties in generalizing from this research still holds true today.  Even so, it is very
clear that  the academic effects of a variety of long and short-term grouping options for
both the purposes of enrichment and acceleration are extremely beneficial for students
who are academically or intellectually gifted or talented.  There is no body of evidence
that "the research says" otherwise!

In this section, the general conclusions of the 13 major research synthesis on

ability grouping, cooperative learning, and acceleration have been presented. Two

figures follow which visually summarize the syntheses-supported outcomes. Appendix A
lists the general conclusions and evaluates the weaknesses of the 13 research syntheses,
and Appendix B matches research synthesis-supported conclusions to the concerns and
assumptions discussed in Section Two.

SECTION FOUR: GUIDELINES FOR SERVING THE NEEDS

OF GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS

The following guidelines are listed, based upon the valid conclusions of the 13

research syntheses evaluated in Section Three. Each guideline will be stated in simple
language, followed by a short discussion of its research-supported rationale. In effect, the
guidelines are listed in research-supported priority.

GUIDELINE ONE: Students who are academically or intellectually gifted

and talented should spend the majority of their school day with others of similar
abilities and interests

Discussion: As the four research syntheses of James and Chen-Lin Kulik showed

(1982, 1984, 1985, 1990), there is a marked academic achievement gain across all subject
areas, as well as a moderate increase in attitude toward the subjects in which these
students are grouped, when the grouping is full-time in differentiated programs
(ES = +.33, +.27, respectively).  What form this grouping may take is open:  both general
intellectual ability grouping (e.g., School Within a School, Gifted Magnet School, etc.)
and grouping for special academic ability (Magnet Schools, etc.) appear to be
academically beneficial.  A concern must be raised that the development of such
programs, if not established with open communication about the purposes of the program,
may be construed as "elitist."  Sensitivity to public concerns about equity and equal
access to quality education is critical to the development of such program options.  Also
of concern is the difficulty such an option presents in very small schools or districts
without a large enough number of students or resources to support a full-time
homogeneously grouped program.

GUIDELINE TWO: Schools that cannot support a full-time gifted program

(whether demographically, economically, or philosophically), the cluster grouping of
approximately one-third of a class load of students either intellectually gifted or
gifted in a similar academic domain (or domains) will suffice. The classroom
"cluster" teacher needs to be sufficiently trained, given preparation time, and
willing to devote a proportionate amount of classroom time to the direct provision of
learning experiences for the cluster group.

Discussion: As the Kuliks were able to establish in their 1990 synthesis, the mean

Effect Size for within-class grouping of the gifted is +.62, a sizeable academic
achievement gain across all academic areas.  This guideline was not listed first in
importance due to the comparatively small number of research studies to support this
practice (n=4).  It is estimated that with a comparative sample of 25 studies, as was found
with separate gifted programs, a substantial Effect Size comparable to the full-time
special program Effect Size (+.33) would be more characteristic.  Such an option cannot
be only partially implemented:  if the "cluster" teacher is not motivated or trained to work
with gifted and talented students, or if the remainder of the class is comprised of

extremely demanding or difficult students, or if the "cluster" curriculum is not
appropriately differentiated, then the academic results will be lackluster.

GUIDELINE THREE: In the absence of full-time gifted program

Discussion: Slavin's synthesis, although it did not include gifted and talented

research studies specifically, produced Effect Sizes large enough for the "Joplin Plan" in
reading (ES=+.45, across 13 studies) to suggest that such outcomes might be expected of
bright students in subjects beyond reading when placed in cross-graded situations.  The
Kuliks, however, reported a smaller Effect Size (ES=+.23, across 16 studies).  Full-time
"cross-grading" might also be considered Nongraded Classroom experiences, which for
the gifted have been found to produce a mean academic Effect Size of +.38 (Rogers,
1991).  Putting these three sets of findings together makes a good case for the strength of
this form of educational provision for the gifted.

GUIDELINE FOUR: Students who are gifted and talented should be given

experiences involving a variety of appropriate acceleration-based options, which
may be offered to gifted students as a group or on an individual basis.

Discussion: As the Kuliks pointed out in their meta-analysis that combined

several forms of acceleration, gifted accelerates showed an achievement gain of
ES = +.88 over their gifted nonaccelerate controls and a trivial gain (ES = +.05) over
their gifted older-aged controls.  Rogers found substantial academic gains for 5 of the 6
forms of acceleration which may be implemented as small group strategies:  Nongraded
Classrooms (ES = +.28), Curriculum Compaction (ES = +.45), Grade Telescoping
(ES = +.56), Subject Acceleration (ES = +.49), and Early Admission to College
(ES = +.44).  The sixth option, Advanced Placement, was close to a substantial academic
gain at ES = +.29.

GUIDELINE FIVE: Students who are gifted and talented should be given

experiences which involve various forms of enrichment that extend the regular
school curriculum, leading to the more complete development of concepts,
principles, and generalizations. This enrichment could be provided within the
classroom through numerous curriculum delivery models currently used in the
field, or in the form of enrichment pullout programs.

Discussion: Vaughan's meta-analysis of studies involving enrichment pullout

programs showed substantial academic gains, ranging from +.32 to +.65 in the specific
areas for which experiences were provided in the pullout program. The opportunities
offered in such programs can be effectively delivered within the classroom, as well as
through the variety of enrichment models that have been developed in the past two
decades.

GUIDELINE SIX: Mixed-ability Cooperative Learning should be used

sparingly, perhaps only for social skills development programs.

Discussion: Robinson's (1990) exhaustive search of the literature was unable to

uncover any well-designed research to substantiate academic achievement gains for
gifted learners when placed in cooperative settings with students of mixed ability.
Slavin's concern about the "Robin Hood Effect," the slight rise in achievement for low-
ability learners must take precedence until a solid body of research has been established
to: (1) counteract Slavin's concern; and (2) provide evidence that homogeneous
cooperative groups produce more academic effect than heterogeneous cooperative groups
or than homogeneous ability groups using a variety of learning modes (individualistic,
small group competitive, etc.).

References

Abrami, P. C., Cohen, P. A., & d'Apollonia, S. (1988). Implementation problems in

meta-analysis.

Review of Educational Research, 58

, 151-180.

Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. (1980). Reviewing the literature: A comparison of

traditional methods with meta-analysis.

Journal of Personality, 48,

449-472.

Dusek, J. B., & Joseph, G. (1983). The bases of teacher expectancies: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 75

, 327-346.

Finley, M. K. (1984). Teachers and tracking in a comprehensive high school.

Sociology

of Education, 57

, 233-243.

Gamoran, A. (1987). Organization, instruction and the effects of ability grouping:

Comments on Slavin's "best-evidence synthesis".

Review of Educational

Research, 57

, 341-346.

Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities.

Sociology

of Education, 60

, 135-155.

Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools:

Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research.

Review of Educational Research,

, 415-435.

George, P. S. (1988).

What's the truth about tracking and ability grouping really???

Gainesville, FL: Teacher Education Resources.

Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research.

Educational

Researcher, 5

(10), 3-8.

Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981).

Meta-analysis in social research

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Guskey, T. R. (1987). Rethinking mastery learning reconsidered.

Review of

Educational Research, 57

, 225-229.

Haller, E. J. (1985). Pupil race and elementary school ability grouping: Are teachers

biased against black children?

American Educational Research Journal, 22

, 465-

483.

Hallinan, M. T. (1990). The effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A

response to Slavin's best-evidence synthesis.

Review of Educational Research,

, 501-504.

Hallinan, M. T., & Sorenson, A. B. (1985). Ability grouping and student friendships.

American Educational Research Journal, 22

, 485-499.

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1984). Analyses, reanalyses and meta-analysis.

Contemporary Education Review, 1

, 157-165.

Hiebert, E. H. (1987). The context of instruction and student learning: An examination

of Slavin's assumptions.

Review of Educational Research, 57

, 337-340.

Jackson, G. B. (1980). Models for integrative reviews.

Review of Educational

Research, 50

, 438-460.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989, April).

The cooperative link

. Minneapolis,

MN: University of Minnesota.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence and

interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A
theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research.

Review of Research

in Education, 53

, 415-424.

Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of

cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A
meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 89

, 47-62.

Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1990).

What to say to people concerned with the

education of high-ability and gifted students

. Unpublished manuscript,

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Kerckhoff, A. C. (1986). Effects of ability grouping in British secondary schools.

American Sociological Review, 51

, 842-858.

Kulik, C-L. C. (1985).

Effects of inter-class ability grouping on achievement and self-

esteem.

Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological

Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Kulik, C-L. C., & Kulik, J. (1984).

Effects of ability grouping on elementary school

pupils: A meta-analysis.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Psychological Association, Ontario, Canada.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school

students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings.

American Educational

Research Journal, 19

, 415-428.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students.

Review of Educational Research, 54

, 409-425.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L C. (1990). Ability grouping and gifted students. In N.

Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.)

Handbook of gifted education

(pp. 178-196).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Light, R. J., & Smith, P. V. (1971). Accumulating evidence: Procedures for resolving

contradictions among different studies.

Harvard Educational Review, 41

, 429-

471.

Oakes, J. (1990).

Beyond tracking: Making the best of schools.

Paper presented for

Cocking Lecture at the 44th Annual NCPEA Conference, Los Angeles, CA:
California State University.

Oakes, J. (1985).

Keeping track: How schools structure inequality.

New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press.

Passow, A. H. (1962). The maze of the research on ability grouping.

Educational

Forum

, 281-288.

Robinson, A. (1990). Point-counterpoint: Cooperation or exploitation? The argument

against cooperative learning for talented students.

Journal for the Education of

the Gifted, 14

, 9-27.

Rogers, K. B. (1991).

A best-evidence synthesis of the research on accelerative options

for gifted students.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota,

Minneapolis.

Rolison, M. A., & Medway, F. J. (1985). Teachers' expectations and attributions for

student achievement: Effects of label, performance pattern, and special education
intervention.

American Educational Research Journal, 22

, 561-573.

Slavin, R. E. (1984). Meta-analysis in education: How has it been used?

Educational

Researcher, 12

(3), 24-27.

Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and

traditional reviews.

Educational Researcher, 9

(15), 5-11.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping: A best-evidence synthesis.

Review of

Educational Research, 57,

293-336.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Mastery learning reconsidered.

Review of Educational Research,

, 175-213.

Slavin, R. E. (1988). Academic programming for the gifted.

Center for Research on

Elementary and Middle Schools Newsletter.

Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins

University Center for the Advancement of Academically Talented Youth.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A

best-evidence synthesis.

Review of Educational Research, 60

, 471-499.

Slavin, R. E. (1990).

Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice.

Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Smith, K., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1982). Effects of cooperative and

individualistic instruction on the achievement of handicapped, regular, and gifted
students.

Journal of Social Psychology, 116

, 277-283.

Sorenson, A. B., & Hallinan, M. T. (1986). Effects of ability grouping on growth in

academic achievement.

American Educational Research Journal, 23

, 519-542.

Vaughn, V. L. (1990).

Meta-analysis of pull-out programs in gifted education.

Paper

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

Wolf, F. M. (1986).

Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Appendices

lua

ynt

roupi

sue

ynt

Inc

lus

ion/

lus

ion

tudi

onc

lus

ions

kne

ynt

(

1982)

upi

onda

chool

tude

lys

lua

indi

ngs

ive

ent

ont

rol

udi

onl

Ini

qui

ubj

aught

com

oups

onda

tud

ent

ene

cki

ng"

pos

ive

chi

eve

ent

abi

ude

gni

abi

oupe

roupe

ude

gni

pos

ive

bout

ubj

udi

ng"

-c

onc

ept

ude

tow

hool

and

udi

one

Inf

abi

int

udi

ent

dur

ion

cont

rol

(

)

ends

(1987)

ion

onda

chool

ynt

and

thnogr

aphi

hnogr

aphi

udi

onl

ive

qua

abl

sur

(10

)

hnogr

aphi

onda

tude

ade

(

gh)

and

enr

col

sur

ch,

our

enr

ent

not

cki

count

for

enc

eve

ent

hod

tudy

ion

not

pos

udi

inc

lude

ons

ide

ont

rol

udi

addi

and

hnogr

aphi

udi

oul

sue

lua

ynt

roupi

sue

ynt

Inc

lus

ion/

lus

ion

tudi

onc

lus

ions

kne

ynt

ends

(1987)

ion

onda

chool

ynt

and

thnogr

aphi

ont

inue

sur

ch,

cki

ove

eve

ent

ude

not

qua

sur

hnogr

aphi

ch,

doc

ent

enc

ins

ona

qua

but

ngf

subs

igni

enc

(

1984)

roupi

ent

chool

upi

lys

ive

ent

ont

rol

udi

onl

Ini

qui

ubj

ught

com

oups

ent

tude

ene

cki

ng"

pos

ive

chi

eve

ent

abi

ude

igni

;

ogr

eve

ent

pos

ive

roupe

ude

and

udi

one

ent

cont

rol

(

-108

)

lua

ynt

roupi

sue

ynt

Inc

lus

ion/

lus

ion

onc

lus

ions

kne

ynt

(1990)

chi

eve

ent

roupi

onda

chool

-E

ynt

ent

ont

rol

udi

onl

nda

rdi

eve

ent

onl

Ini

qui

ent

r's

dur

ion

ent

cont

rol

room

udi

spe

low

chi

eve

-t

udi

onl

onda

tude

enc

eve

ent

and

nont

cke

ude

enc

eve

ent

ude

ade

not

-c

oupe

not

but

enc

eve

ent

ng,

but

gni

oupi

low

eve

cont

ext

che

)

tudi

nda

rdi

not

tua

ught

lua

ynt

roupi

sue

ynt

Inc

lus

ion/

lus

ion

tudi

onc

lus

ions

kne

ynt

(1987)

roupi

and

tude

chi

eve

ent

chool

ynt

ent

ont

rol

udi

nda

rdi

eve

ent

onl

Ini

qui

ent

. 3

cont

rol

che

room

udi

chi

eve

;

-t

udi

onl

(14

cki

ng"

egr

oupi

ng"

opl

in"

)

ent

tude

enc

eve

ent

and

nont

cke

ude

igni

chi

eve

ent

for

ros

ade

oupi

igni

chi

eve

ent

for

-c

oupi

Inc

onc

lus

ive

roupi

for

spe

subj

qua

ibut

ion:

but

enc

eve

ent

but

gni

oupi

spe

tude

cont

ext

oup

(

cur

cul

)

tudi

nda

rdi

not

tua

ught

lua

ynt

roupi

sue

ynt

Inc

lus

ion/

lus

ion

tudi

onc

lus

ions

kne

ynt

(

1985)

-c

roupi

chi

eve

ent

cki

ng"

tudi

onl

ive

ent

ont

rol

udi

onl

Ini

qui

ubj

ught

com

oups

(40

ent

conda

ry)

ent

onda

tude

ene

cki

pos

ive

udi

ene

eve

ent

honor

ogr

gni

subs

pos

ive

enc

eve

ent

edi

ogr

-e

ghe

and

ave

and

pos

ive

for

udi

enc

honor

ogr

pos

ive

-e

edi

ogr

ent

cont

rol

(

108

)

tudy

cont

lua

ynt

roupi

sue

ynt

Inc

lus

ion/

lus

ion

tudi

onc

lus

ions

kne

ynt

(

1990)

roupi

and

tude

Int

-C

tudi

onl

ive

ent

ont

rol

udi

onl

Ini

qui

ubj

ught

com

oups

udi

ogr

udi

ogr

udi

ade

udi

ent

onda

tude

ene

oupi

-t

udi

pos

ive

eve

gni

ghe

eve

ent

tha

oups

-t

udi

low

eve

gni

onl

pos

ive

ode

pos

ive

tude

subj

-t

udi

pos

ive

tude

hool

-t

udi

ode

pos

ive

eve

ent

-c

-t

udi

ent

cont

rol

(

tudy

ght

ing

ont

rol

lua

ynt

roupi

sue

ynt

Inc

lus

ion/

lus

ion

tudi

onc

lus

ions

kne

ynt

(

1990)

roupi

and

tude

ont

inue

ent

onda

tude

ode

pos

ive

eve

ent

ade

oup

-t

udi

pos

ive

eve

ent

ed/

honor

udi

enc

ed/

honor

udi

enc

ude

tow

subj

ed/

honor

udi

10.

tude

hool

ed/

honor

udi

11.

lus

oupi

pos

ive

chi

eve

ent

tudi

lua

ynt

roupi

sue

ynt

Inc

lus

ion/

lus

ion

tudi

onc

lus

ions

kne

ynt

aughn

(1990)

lys

out

rog

duc

ion"

ent

ont

rol

udi

onl

ude

com

oups

;

ion

ini

equi

tude

spe

gul

room

ent

onda

tude

pos

ive

chi

eve

ent

for

ude

pul

out

pos

ive

thi

nki

pul

out

ogr

ode

pos

ive

pul

out

ogr

pos

ive

conc

ept

for

-out

ogr

tudi

lude

expl

ion

for

out

com

sur

ed:

the

indi

cur

ogr

lua

ynt

roupi

sue

ynt

Inc

lus

ion/

lus

ion

tudi

onc

lus

ions

kne

ynt

Johns

on,

ohns

on,

uya

(1984)

nde

and

Int

ona

ion

ong

oge

ous

and

oge

ous

Indi

dua

ion

and

lys

the

ent

ont

rol

udi

lude

goa

ruc

tur

coope

com

ind

ivi

dua

exc

lus

ion

due

poor

hodol

ogy

qua

udi

onl

(31

hni

ndi

ppe

hom

oge

ous

popul

ions

)

ent

onda

tude

oope

oduc

gni

rge

pos

ive

ins

hni

tude

oope

oduc

gni

rge

pos

ive

tude

tow

ndi

ppe

ude

oope

oduc

gni

rge

pos

ive

int

ona

ngs

ong

hom

oge

ous

tude

cont

rol

ove

dur

ion,

hodol

ogy,

qua

Ini

qui

com

oups

not

ays

abl

qua

cont

ent

aught

not

ays

abl

com

oups

any

loc

lope

sur

ty,

tudi

Johns

ons

' ow

Indi

dua

oups

not

oppor

tuni

int

but

ons

int

lua

ynt

roupi

sue

ynt

Inc

lus

ion/

lus

ion

tudi

onc

lus

ions

kne

ynt

Johns

on,

uya

Johns

on,

son

kon

(1981)

oope

and

Indi

dua

tur

chi

eve

ent

lys

ent

ont

rol

udi

lude

goa

ruc

tur

coope

com

indi

dua

coope

com

exc

lus

ion

due

poor

hodol

ogy

qua

udi

onl

122

ent

onda

tude

for

oope

oduc

gni

rge

pos

ive

ude

oduc

ty/

eve

ent

ighe

eve

ent

found

younge

ade

coope

ent

cont

rol

ent

dur

ion,

hodol

ogy,

qua

tudi

lude

Johns

ons

' ow

tudi

ade

chi

eve

ent

lua

ynt

roupi

sue

ynt

Inc

lus

ion/

lus

ion

tudi

onc

lus

ions

kne

ynt

(1990)

oope

rni

and

tude

chi

eve

ent

Ini

qui

oups

ent

dur

ion

hour

ent

ont

rol

oups

tudy

ent

cove

obj

ught

com

oups

ent

onda

tude

rni

hods

oope

oduc

gni

ode

chi

eve

ent

com

oope

Indi

dua

count

abi

ent

oope

com

oup

goa

oduc

gni

rge

ade

ion

condi

exc

lude

iva

for

coope

udi

lua

ynt

roupi

sue

ynt

Inc

lus

ion/

lus

ion

tudi

onc

lus

ions

kne

ynt

(

1984)

Ins

tude

ive

ent

ont

rol

com

son

ini

qui

ent

onda

tude

oduc

gni

rge

pos

ive

eve

ent

com

age

non

enc

eve

ent

and

age

com

oups

pos

ive

tude

hool

tow

subj

popul

pos

ive

voc

iona

ans

adj

ent

;

ipa

on;

ode

cha

udgm

ent

for

not

lude

tudi

eve

addi

ona

for

ion

lua

ynt

roupi

sue

ynt

Inc

lus

ions

lus

ion

tudi

onc

lus

ions

kne

ynt

oge

(

1991)

ynt

ype

ive

rogr

for

tude

ive

qua

ive

udy

gns

(

onduc

;

foc

indi

dua

spons

ons

udi

epr

ent

eve

soc

hol

ogi

gor

for

som

for

ion

foc

col

opt

ions

-12

onl

lua

ynt

roupi

sue

ynt

Inc

lus

ions

lus

ion

tudi

onc

lus

ions

kne

ynt

oge

(

1991)

ynt

ype

ive

rogr

for

tude

ion

ions

onc

ent

shi

oduc

rge

pos

ive

hol

ogi

adj

ent

pos

ive

for

chool

ppi

ng,

ongr

ade

room

ion

ions

copi

and

ubj

ion

-S

uppor

onc

lus

ions

onc

roupi

sue

onc

lus

ion

uppor

epr

ent

ive

ent

chi

eve

ent

rne

ubs

eve

ent

ynt

(1982

1984

1985,

1990)

aughn

(1990)

-a

ude

ade

rogr

tha

ovi

ins

for

pos

ive

but

oupi

done

tude

ene

pos

ive

ode

ogr

tha

spe

gne

for

ude

1990

191

)

chi

eve

ent

for

rne

enc

eve

ent

not

ynt

(1987

1990)

(1982

1984

1985,

1990)

ends

(

1987)

oupi

onl

ivi

the

eve

ent

low

tude

the

oupi

-z

ent

ave

low

tude

1982

425

-426)

roupi

inf

-e

ed,

-e

ave

low

ude

-t

oupi

ng,

and

ave

ight

ly,

inc

ght

for

chi

eve

honor

and

edi

ogr

-e

inc

ght

ynt

(1982

1984

1985,

1990)

aughn

(1990)

hool

ovi

ent

ude

oduc

good

sul

ude

the

ogr

inva

abl

ade

and

not

com

ipa

on.

nyt

ude

com

ight

ode

bout

the

ught

hom

oge

ous

oups

ana

lys

ovi

uppor

for

oupi

ogr

low

rne

the

cont

ry,

found

oupi

lpe

ove

the

low

rne

1985

)

-S

uppor

onc

lus

ions

onc

roupi

sue

onc

lus

ion

uppor

epr

ent

ive

ent

oope

ing

eve

ent

ubs

eve

ent

for

oope

Inc

ons

for

ynt

Johns

on,

uya

Johns

on,

son

kon

(1981)

(1990)

tudy:

obi

(1990)

the

oope

rni

eve

ent

pos

ive

sons

pos

ive

(

72%

);

onl

(12%

)

vor

oup.

eve

ook

eve

tha

ent

rni

hods

ide

chi

eve

ent

1990,

18)

sum

oope

rni

ude

not

the

popul

ion

hus

tudi

expl

ide

the

qua

the

lyz

out

com

eve

ent

ubgr

oups

obi

on,

1990,

19)

oope

ove

-c

onc

ept

Inc

ons

por

tudi

onl

(

11)

(1990)

Johns

on,

ohns

on,

(1983)

]he

conc

coope

rni

and

-e

not

cons

the

coope

rni

tude

oba

spe

the

ngs

obt

agi

nge

suc

tude

hol

ogi

ake

int

ion

onl

' dur

ion

1990,

44)

-S

uppor

onc

lus

ions

onc

roupi

sue

onc

lus

ion

uppor

epr

ent

ive

ent

ion

oduc

and

hol

ogi

adj

ent

for

oduc

pos

ive

and

hol

ogi

ins

for

oduc

subs

soc

and

hol

ogi

ins

ynt

oge

(

1991)

(1984)

tudy

show

tha

the

ini

and

iona

the

ive

opt

ions

oge

1991,

201)

che

xpe

enr

ent

ed,

rne

Inc

onc

lus

ive

che

expe

ions

for

ent

oups

;

unde

low

com

Inc

ons

epor

ynt

ends

(1987)

tudy:

ake

(1985

1990)

, F

inl

(1984

)

eddi

(1971

che

uppos

tha

the

eve

ryda

ngs

onc

ept

not

ays

ude

low

the

com

-know

dge

ion

low

-s

igh

-s

tude

que

ions

bout

ngs

the

ide

unde

tood;

ons

eque

the

ent

ude

com

conc

ept

ends

1987

423

)

-S

uppor

onc

lus

ions

onc

roupi

sue

onc

lus

ion

uppor

epr

ent

ive

ent

tude

low

expe

ions

anc

abi

enc

eve

ent

ght

edi

ogr

ynt

(

1987

1990)

(1985

1990

ends

(1987)

spe

udy

onl

ana

lys

ovi

uppor

the

oupi

ogr

rne

the

ont

ry,

found

hom

oge

ous

oupi

lpe

ove

the

low

rne

ogr

pos

ive

chi

ent

ik,

1985

)

and

ave

ude

abi

ove

ight

ly.

ight

ynt

(1985

1990

)

]ve

indi

ngs

hono

, X

and

edi

ogr

show

tha

the

oupi

ogr

gne

for

ent

tude

ivi

the

rogr

ove

the

nde

for

pos

ive

the

oups

ina

udi

edi

rogr

ovi

addi

ona

evi

tha

ins

hom

oge

ous

oups

pos

ive

the

low

rne

1990

191)

-S

uppor

onc

lus

ions

onc

roupi

sue

onc

lus

ion

uppor

epr

ent

ive

ent

che

xpe

chi

ldr

ount

nor

ove

ude

coope

oupe

chi

eve

ent

ins

for

Inc

onc

lus

ive

eve

ent

ynt

Johns

on,

uya

Johns

on,

son

kon

(1981)

, S

(1990)

ohns

ons

udi

sue

but

onl

found

bot

the

iva

ona

and

the

ogni

suppor

the

chi

eve

ent

oope

rni

ng,

the

one

ant

tha

voi

[

]

ona

ive

ope

cons

coope

rni

hods

low

-r

ide

som

oup

ng)

long

for

ide

1990,

16)

]

ove

ong

evi

for

supe

oope

ing

eve

ent

oduc

ty.

ohns

on,

uya

ohns

on,

son,

kon,

1981

)

sons

ade

the

pha

ski

out

com

the

adi

ona

oom

tha

ovi

ons

sui

ude

ont

rol

and

ent

ion

the

ndi

dua

ondi

son

one

and

puni

shi

ng.

appl

abi

ude

obi

on,

1990,

19)

-S

uppor

onc

lus

ions

onc

roupi

sue

onc

lus

ion

uppor

epr

ent

ive

ent

oope

oduc

ghe

-e

for

oup

cor

expe

ions

Inc

ons

por

tudi

onl

(n=

11)

(1990)

and

Johns

on,

ohns

on,

uya

(1983)

evi

ous

quot

1990,

44)

che

xpe

chi

ldr

ghe

ade

age

ynt

(1984

oge

(1991)

hough

out

com

ion

cons

pos

ive

ong

che

ept

ions

ong

one

hool

ini

tor

oge

1991,

che

xpe

and

eve

ove

for

ynt

(1984

oge

(1991)

evi

ons

pos

ive

ega

ion

popul

ent

ude

ipa

chool

ivi

1990

190

)

evi

ous

quot

oge

1991,

201)

-S

uppor

onc

lus

ions

onc

roupi

sue

onc

lus

ion

uppor

epr

ent

ive

ent

-a

cont

spr

opor

ona

num

inor

and

dva

age

ude

abi

cont

spr

opor

ona

num

iddl

uppe

ude

ype

ent

ons

count

ent

couns

eot

ype

for

anc

tha

conne

ed,

but

ent

ons

ade

anc

not

ype

tudi

onl

ake

(1985,

1990)

eph

(1983)

ins

edw

(1985)

(1985,

1986

)

ake

toge

the

not

ugge

inf

lue

pup

ing

oup

ons

inl

cor

tha

pupi

gne

low

oups

ent

hool

ove

ent

the

and

voc

iona

chool

cor

tha

' j

udgm

ent

about

por

ty)

ina

appe

rue

gogi

por

ons

ide

ons

(

suc

and

condi

ons

hom

(

though

ons

ips

tha

abl

inc

how

eve

the

tha

any

ons

n's

udy

sugge

tha

the

...

roup

gnm

ent

eve

ent

1985

480

)

cki

oup

and

"out

oup

chy;

igm

rne

Inc

onc

lus

ive

tudi

onl

ake

(1985,

1990)

ens

(19

85)

ugge

long

ends

for

oups

cont

the

-t

ld,

lue

cor

-t

cour

...

evi

doe

not

ons

tha

enc

ude

tude

and

expe

ions

cor

spondi

enc

the

bol

ends

1987

430

)

-S

uppor

onc

lus

ions

onc

roupi

sue

onc

lus

ion

uppor

epr

ent

ive

ent

ogni

indi

dua

enc

unde

low

som

ahe

Inc

onc

lus

ive

tudi

onl

ake

(1985,

1990)

cus

ends

synt

(1987)

annot

ibut

cki

one

chool

ins

tut

ions

rdl

thos

ude

the

ight

envi

ronm

ent

the

int

que

ion

ndi

ngs

ryw

the

ihood

hool

upw

obi

poo

and

inor

ude

sur

ent

aga

ins

the

sul

the

spr

opor

ona

ent

oups

the

ype

know

dge

expos

and

the

qua

rni

oppo

uni

for

ake

1985,

134

)

oope

hni

tude

ubs

pos

ive

ins

hni

tude

ynt

Johns

on,

ohns

on,

uya

(1983)

, S

(1990)

]oope

ends

pos

ive

ude

and

inor

ude

tha

doe

int

ona

com

ndi

dua

ohns

on,

ohns

uya

1983,

pp.

-17

)

oope

pos

ive

ude

tow

ndi

ppe

ubs

pos

ive

ins

tude

tow

ndi

ppe

ynt

Johns

on,

ohns

on,

uya

(1983)

, S

(1990)

coope

rni

ade

ndi

ppe

nor

-pr

ogr

ude

show

tha

coope

rni

ove

nds

and

int

the

ude

1990,

43)

-S

uppor

onc

lus

ions

onc

roupi

sue

onc

lus

ion

uppor

epr

ent

ive

ent

oope

epa

ad,

soc

Inc

onc

lus

ive

tudi

onl

ohns

Johns

(1991)

thi

udi

but

onl

loc

ohns

(1982)

ent

ight

tude

rou

onl

ryone

doe

houl

cont

but

the

oup

the

you

...

expe

ight

chi

eve

coope

fur

the

and

the

abl

unobt

rus

ive

ays

dva

age

tha

the

pha

ude

enc

our

age

educ

com

lue

onl

for

eve

ent

the

rol

the

goa

ens

and

soc

spons

ibi

pous

publ

duc

ion,

the

expe

ions

hol

for

ldr

ent

chi

ldr

shoul

count

abl

tha

obi

on,

1990,

21)

che

ent

ude

ent

gni

enc

ins

ona

qua

rni

doc

ent

ynt

ends

(1987)

cus

udi

ake

(1985)

inl

(1984)

, S

ens

(1986)

not

pos

expl

ana

for

and

ons

though

ins

abi

the

ona

enc

tua

com

the

ove

ends

1987

425

)

-S

uppor

onc

lus

ions

onc

roupi

sue

onc

uppor

epr

ent

ive

ent

ins

unc

engi

and

ive

;

abi

ins

cha

engi

and

gni

enc

ins

ona

ive

/pa

ive

ion

doc

ent

ynt

ends

(1987)

cus

udi

ake

(1985)

inl

(1984)

ing

the

thnogr

aphi

ndi

ngs

, w

foun

ona

enc

avor

ing

-t

the

thnogr

aphi

tur

ovi

gui

for

udgi

shoul

ons

ide

ngf

and

the

ivi

(

ends

1987,

426)

igh

abi

"hi

gh"

tus

know

dge

;

low

abi

ive

voc

iona

know

dge

indi

tha

thi

cur

but

the

que

ion

about

the

thi

but

oupi

ynt

ends

(1987)

cus

udi

ake

(1985,

1990)

tude

ade

cks

ndi

col

enr

...

ends

1987

418

)

know

dge

ent

-t

ngl

oul

'hi

ghl

lue

tur

and

for

ghe

educ

ion

cont

low

-t

foc

ade

com

put

iona

ski

and

ont

ent

none

-s

tus

type

ake

1985,

)

-S

uppor

onc

lus

ions

onc

roupi

sue

onc

lus

ion

uppor

epr

ent

ive

ent

che

Inc

onc

lus

ive

tudi

onl

cus

ake

(1985)

thnogr

aphe

ovi

ion

ins

ona

ent

eove

che

put

ski

suc

ful

loc

-t

the

ins

ona

enc

nough

ude

chi

eve

ent

unt

que

ion.

ends

1987

431

)

hol

oup

ins

sul

ins

ona

qua

enc

eve

ent

hol

oup,

ixe

abi

ng;

conc

about

obi

ood

eve

r's

anc

ght

inc

low

eve

ynt

ends

(1987)

, S

(1987)

api

cove

eve

igh

low

chi

eve

sol

the

ove

-m

ende

oduc

obi

ood'

oduc

...

por

not

tha

the

ove

. m

exi

hol

oup

-pa

ins

, a

the

obi

ood'

oduc

adi

ona

ins

on.

1987,

206)

roupi

abi

ty/

eve

ent

Inc

ent

ynt

ends

(1987)

, K

(1990)

, S

(1987)

oupi

uppos

inc

ude

eve

ent

educ

ing

the

roge

ona

oup

aki

pos

the

ovi

tha

too

nor

too

for

ude

1987,

296)

-S

uppor

onc

lus

ions

onc

roupi

sue

onc

lus

ion

uppor

epr

ent

ive

ent

igh

oups

thy

soc

ons

;

low

oups

sha

oni

ous

Inc

onc

lus

ive

ynt

ends

(1987)

cus

udy:

ake

(1985)

ldr

low

-t

lude

ivi

unf

endl

robl

and

gui

eque

ly.

tude

low

-a

the

and

the

ppe

anc

tha

the

ake

1990,

soc

pos

ive

soc

not

for

ynt

oge

(

1991)

evi

ous

quot

oge

1991,

201)

soc

cohe

on,

ept

ions

suppor

pos

ive

conc

ept

coope

oupe

Inc

onc

lus

ive

ynt

Johns

on,

ohns

uya

(1983)

(1990)

oope

rni

expe

enc

com

indi

dua

xpe

enc

found

sul

onge

tha

one

ona

uppor

ude

bout

how

one

rns

and

tha

ude

ant

one

ohns

on,

ohns

on,

uya

1983

33)

evi

ous

quot

1990,

44)

Research-Based Decision Making Series

The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented

The University of Connecticut

362 Fairfield Road, U-7

Storrs, CT 06269-2007

Editor

E. Jean Gubbins

Production Assistants

Dawn Guenther

Renay Midler

Jonathan A. Plucker

Scott Renzulli

Del Siegle

Siamak Vahidi

Series Reviewers

Susan Demirsky Allan

Francis X. Archambault

John Borkowski

James Borland

Carolyn M. Callahan

Pamela Clinkenbeard

Nicholas Colangelo

Gary Confessore

Bonnie Cramond

James Cross

Gary Davis

Marcia Delcourt

John Feldhusen

David Fetterman

William Foster

Marcia Imbeau

David Irvine

David Kenny

Joe Khatena

Jann Leppien

Wilma Lund

Marian Matthews

Stuart Omdal

A. Harry Passow

Jonathan A. Plucker

Brian D. Reid

Sally M. Reis

Joseph S. Renzulli

Del Siegle

Virginia Simmons

Robert J. Sternberg

Kazuko Tanaka

James Undercofler

Karen L.Westberg

Also of Interest

Cooperative Learning and the Academically Talented Student

by Ann Robinson

Self-Concept and the Gifted Child

by Robert D. Hoge & Joseph S. Renzulli

An Analysis of the Research on Ability Grouping:

Historical and Contemporary Perspectives

James A. Kulik

Issues and Practices Related to Identification of Gifted and

Talented Students in the Visual Arts

by Gilbert A. Clark & Enid Zimmerman

The University of Connecticut

Dr. Francis X. Archambault, Associate Director

The University of Connecticut

School of Education, U-64

Storrs, CT 06269-2007

203-486-4031

Dr. Alexinia Y. Baldwin

Dr. Scott W. Brown

Dr. Deborah E. Burns

Dr. David A. Kenny

Dr. Jonna Kulikowich

Dr. Sally M. Reis

Dr. Karen L. Westberg

Dr. Michael F. Young

The University of Georgia

Dr. Mary M. Frasier, Associate Director

The University of Georgia

Department of Educational Psychology

323 Aderhold Hall

Athens, GA 30602-7146

404-542-5106

Dr. Scott L. Hunsaker

The University of Virginia

Dr. Carolyn M. Callahan, Associate Director

Curry School of Education

The University of Virginia

405 Emmet Street

Charlottesville, VA 22903

804-982-2849

Dr. Michael S. Caldwell

Dr. Robert W. Covert

Dr. Marcia A. B. Delcourt

Dr. Mary Catherine Ellwein

Dr. Bruce Gansneder

Dr. Brenda H. Loyd

Dr. Donald Ball

Yale University

Dr. Robert J. Sternberg, Associate Director

Yale University

Psychology Department

Box 11-A, Yale Station

New Haven, CT 06520-7447

203-432-4633

Dr. Pamela Clinkenbeard

The

National

Research

Center

the

Gifted

and

Talented

Research

Teams

NRC

G/T