Annotated Bibliography

Meta-analysis


Kent, S. D. (1995). The effects of acceleration on the social and emotional development of gifted elementary students: A meta-analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(2-A). U.S.: University Microfilms International.

No abstract available.

Kulik, J. A. (1993). An analysis of the research on ability grouping. NRC/GT Newsletter, Spring, 8-9.

This research review summarizes two major sets of meta-analyses on five kinds of ability grouping programs: (1) XYZ classes (high, middle, and low classes); (2) cross-grade grouping; (3) within-class grouping; (4) accelerated classes; and (5) enriched classes. One group of meta-analyses concluded that the strongest benefits from grouping were found in programs in which there was a great deal of adjustment of curriculum for highly talented learners. The other meta-analysis did not find any strong positive benefits of grouping, but did not examine grouping programs designed for highly talented students. Re-analysis of all studies included in both sets of meta-analyses confirmed that higher aptitude students usually benefit academically from ability grouping. Benefits are in proportion to the amount of curriculum adjustment, with programs entailing acceleration of instruction resulting in the most gain on standardized tests. Grouping was found to have less influence on the academic achievement of middle and lower aptitude students. Analysis of noncognitive outcomes suggests that the effects of grouping on self-esteem measures measure for all ability groups are small and may even be rather positive. Results are contrasted with the conclusions of J. Oakes ["Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality" (1985)]. The review concludes that American education would be harmed by the wholesale elimination of programs that group learners for instruction by ability.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1984). Synthesis of research on effects of accelerated instruction. Educational Leadership, 42(2), 84-89.

A meta-analysis of 26 studies shows that accelerated gifted students outperform students of the same age and ability who are not accelerated and achieve as well as equally gifted older students in the higher grades. Correlational studies suggest that accelerates are equally successful later in life.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1984). The effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54(3), 409-425.

Results from a meta-analysis of 26 controlled studies on the effects of accelerated instruction on elementary and secondary school students are presented. The examination performance of accelerates surpassed the performance of equivalent age and intelligence nonaccelerates and equaled the performance of same-grade but older, talented nonaccelerates.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73-77.

Meta-analytic reviews have shown that gifted students gain little from programs of minimal instructional modification (multilevel classes), more from greater modifications (cross-grade and within-class programs) and the most from those involving the greatest amount of curricular adjustment (enrichment and acceleration).

Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner (Executive Summary).Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

This executive summary reports on a study which utilized meta-analysis and best-evidence synthesis techniques to evaluate 13 research studies on the academic, social, and psychological effects upon learners who are gifted and talented of three grouping practices: (1) ability grouping for enrichment; (2) mixed ability cooperative grouping for regular instruction; and (3) grouping for acceleration. It concluded that the research showed strong, consistent support for the academic effects of most forms of ability grouping for enrichment and acceleration, but that the research is scant and weak concerning the socialization and psychological adjustment 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. Guidelines are offered suggesting that: students who are gifted and talented should spend most of their school day with others of similar abilities and interests; cluster grouping of gifted students within an otherwise heterogeneously grouped classroom can be considered when a full time gifted program is not feasible; a cross-grade grouping option could be offered in the absence of a full time gifted program enrollment; gifted and talented students should be offered a variety of acceleration and enrichment based options; and mixed ability cooperative learning should be used sparingly for students who are gifted and talented.