The Effects of Homogeneous Grouping on Gifted Students: A Systematic Literature Review

Year 2024, Volume: 25 Issue: 2, 191 - 207, 01.06.2024

Kadir Çalışkan , Sema Tan

https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1117630

Abstract

Introduction: Homogeneous grouping strategies are among the basic interventions for gifted education. Although the academic advantages of these interventions have been frequently documented, concerns about their possible psycho-social negative effects can sometimes lead to cautious approaches to their implementation. In this regard, the main objective of the present study was determined as examining the relationship between homogeneous grouping strategies and the academic and psycho-social characteristics of gifted students.
Method: The current study is a systematic literature review. Empirical resources investigating the effects of grouping strategies implemented in the formal education processes of gifted students were included in the study. Either gifted students of compulsory education age (primary, secondary, and high school) or gifted individuals whose experiences at compulsory education age were focused on were the participants of the included studies. Eighteen studies identified in line with the inclusion criteria were included in the systematic literature review. The effects of homogeneous grouping were examined under the themes of academic effects and psycho-social effects.
Findings: The findings of the systematic literature review demonstrate that implementing homogeneous grouping strategies in gifted education has academically positive but psycho-socially complex (positive and/or negative or neutral) effects.
Discussion: The fact that educational arrangements for characteristics that differentiate gifted students from their peers are associated with positive academic outcomes is consistent with the relevant literature. The psycho-social effects of the homogeneous grouping of gifted students are usually related to self-concept, and most of the research findings included are consistent with the big fish-little pond effect.

Keywords

Gifted, education, homogeneous grouping, academic effects, psycho-social effects

Homojen Gruplamanın Özel Yetenekli Öğrenciler Üzerindeki Etkileri: Bir Sistematik Literatür Taraması

Abstract

Giriş: Homojen gruplama stratejileri, özel yetenekliler eğitimi için temel uygulamalardan biridir. Bu uygulamaların özel yetenekliler eğitimindeki birtakım faydaları alan yazında tartışılmıştır. Ancak homojen gruplamanın olası olumsuz etkilerine ilişkin endişeler, zaman zaman onu uygulama konusunda temkinli yaklaşımlara da yol açabilmektedir. Bu bağlamda; homojen gruplama stratejilerinin, özel yetenekli öğrencilerin akademik ve psiko-sosyal özellikleri ile ilişkisini incelemek, bu çalışmanın temel amacı olarak belirlenmiştir.
Yöntem: Bu çalışma bir sistematik literatür taramasıdır. Çalışmaya, özel yetenekli öğrencilerin örgün eğitim süreçlerinde uygulanan gruplama stratejilerinin etkilerini araştıran ampirik kaynaklar dahil edilmiştir. Dahil edilen araştırmaların katılımcıları, ya zorunlu eğitim çağındaki (ilkokul, ortaokul ve lise) özel yetenekli öğrenciler ya da zorunlu eğitim çağındaki deneyimlerine odaklanılan özel yetenekli bireylerdir. Dahil etme kriterlerine uygun olarak belirlenen 18 araştırma, sistematik literatür taramasına alınmıştır. Homojen gruplamanın etkileri, akademik etkiler ve psiko-sosyal etkiler temaları altında incelenmiştir.
Bulgular: Sistematik literatür taramasının bulguları; özel yetenekliler eğitiminde homojen gruplama stratejileri uygulamanın, akademik açıdan olumlu, ancak psiko-sosyal açıdan karmaşık (olumlu ve/veya olumsuz ya da nötr) etkileri olduğunu göstermektedir.
Tartışma: Özel yetenekli öğrencilerin akranlarından farklılaşan özelliklerine yönelik eğitimsel düzenlemelerin yapılmasının, olumlu akademik sonuçlarla ilişkili olması, ilgili literatürle tutarlıdır. Özel yetenekli öğrencileri homojen gruplamanın psiko-sosyal etkileri ise genellikle benlik algısı ile ilgilidir ve dahil edilen araştırma bulgularının birçoğu, büyük balık-küçük gölet etkisiyle tutarlıdır.

Keywords

Özel yetenek, Eğitim, Homojen gruplama, Akademik etkiler, Psiko-sosyal etkiler

References

• Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S. S., & Moon, S. M. (2004). Gifted students’ perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800102
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
• Batterjee, A. A. (2016). The effect of grouping and program type on scholastic and affective outcomes in the Mawhiba schools partnership initiative. Gifted Education International, 32(2), 123-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429414557588
• Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382
• Brody, L. E., & Stanley, J. C. (2005). Youths who reason exceptionally well mathematically and/or verbally using the MVT:D4 model to develop their talents. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conception of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 20-37). Cambridge University Press.
• Callahan, C. M., & Miller, E. M. (2005). A child-responsive model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.) Conception of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 38-51). Cambridge University Press.
• Clark, B. (2015). Üstün zekâlı olarak büyümek: Evde ve okulda çocukların potansiyellerini geliştirmek [Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at school and at home]. (F. Kaya & Ü. Oğurlu, Çev.). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. (Orijinal kitabın yayın tarihi 2012)
• Çitil, M. (2018). Türkiye’de üstün yeteneklilerin eğitimi politikalarının değerlendirilmesi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 1, 143-172. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/milliegitim/issue/40518/480017
• Çitil, M., Ersoy, S., Özdemir-Kılıç, M., & Ağaya, A. (2020). Üstün yeteneklilerin eğitiminde ayrı okullar: Amerika’daki üstün yetenekliler okullarının karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi. Çocuk ve Medeniyet, 5(10), 257-280. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cm/issue/59377/850876
• Delcourt, M. A. B., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. (2007). Cognitive and affective learning outcomes of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 359–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306320
• Demirel Dingeç, Ş., & Kirişçi, N. (2023). Türkiye’de erken çocukluk dönemindeki özel yeteneklilerin eğitimine eleştirel bir bakış. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(1), 470-488. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1201131
• Dimitriadis, C. (2012). Provision for mathematically gifted children in primary schools: an investigation of four different methods of organisational provision. Educational Review, 64(2), 241-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.598920
• Feldhusen, J. F. (2005). Giftedness, talent, expertise, and creative achivement. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.) Conception of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 64-79). Cambridge University Press.
• Feldhusen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students: Issues and concerns. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 63-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600202
• Fiedler, E. D., Lange, R. E., & Winebrenner, S. (2002). In search of reality: Unraveling the myths about tracking, ability grouping, and the gifted. Roeper Review, 24(3), 108-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190209554142
• Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314682
• Gagné, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98-119). Cambridge University Press.
• Gagné, F. (2009). The differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert & C. A. Little (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 165-192). Creative Learning Press.
• Gentry, M., & Fugate, C. M. (2013). Cluster grouping programs and the total school cluster grouping model. In Callahan, C. M. & Hertberg-Davis, H. L. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 212-225), Routledge.
• Greenwald, A. G., Bellezza, F. S., & Banaji, M. R. (1988). Is self-esteem a central ıngredient of the self-concept? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(1), 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167288141004
• Gubbins, E. J. (2013). Cognitive and affective outcomes of pull-out programs: Knowns and unknowns. In Callahan, C. M. & Hertberg-Davis, H. L. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 176-187), Routledge.
• Herrmann, J., Schmidt, I., Kessels, U., & Preckel, F. (2016). Big fish in big ponds: Contrast and assimilation effects on math and verbal self‐concepts of students in within‐school gifted tracks. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 222-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12100
• Hertberg-Davis, H. L., & Callahan, C. M. (2013). Contexts for instruction: An introduction to service delivery options and programming models in gifted education. In Callahan, C. M. & Hertberg-Davis, H. L. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 161-163), Routledge.
• Hertzog, N. B. (2003). Impact of gifted programs from the students' perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 131-143. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001698620304700204
• Hornby, G., & Witte, C. (2014). Ability grouping in New Zealand high schools: Are practices evidence-based?. Preventing School Failure, 58(2), 90-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2013.782531
• Kulik, J. A. (1992). An Analysis of the Research on Ability Grouping: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Research-Based Decision Making Series. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED350777
• Maker, J.C. (2009). The DISCOVER Assessment and Curriculum Development Model. In Renzulli, J., Gubbins, J. E., McMillen, K. S., Eckert, R. D., & Little, C. A. (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted & talented (pp. 235-252). Creative Learning Press.
• Margas, N., Fontayne, P., & Brunel, P. C. (2006). Influences of classmates' ability level on physical self-evaluations. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7(2), 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.08.008
• Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (2003). Big-Fish--Little-Pond effect on academic self-concept: A cross-cultural (26-country) test of the negative effects of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58(5), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.58.5.364
• Marsh, H. W., & Parker, J. W. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don't learn to swim as well? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 213-231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.1.213
• Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Baumert, J., & Köller, O. (2007). The big-fish-little-pond effect: Persistent negative effects of selective high schools on self-concept after graduation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 631–669. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306728
• Matthews, M. S., Ritchotte, J. A., & McBee, M. T. (2013). Effects of schoolwide cluster grouping and within-class ability grouping on elementary school students’ academic achievement growth. High Ability Studies, 24(2), 81-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2013.846251
• McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003a). The structure and function of academic self‐concept in gifted and general education students. Roeper Review, 25(2), 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554200
• McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003b). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 144-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700205
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 339(7716), 332-336. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
• Neihart, M. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 330–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306319
• National Association for Gifted Children. (2009). Grouping (Position Statement). https://dev.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Grouping%20Position%20Statement.pdf
• National Association for Gifted Children. (2014). Differentiating curriculum and instruction for gifted and talented students (Position Statement). https://dev.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Differentiating%20Curriculum%20and%20Instruction.pdf
• Oruç, Ş., Çağır, S., & Ateş, H. (2020). Üstün yetenekli çocukların eğitimsel beklentileri. Türkiye Eğitim Dergisi, 5(2), 302-319. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/turkegitimdergisi/issue/55125/707053
• Özel Eğitim Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği [Special Education Services Regulation]. (2018). T.C. Resmi Gazete, (30471), 07 Temmuz 2018, 22-77.
• Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., Adams, C. M., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Dixon, F. A., & Cross, T. L. (2011). The effects of clustering and curriculum on the development of gifted learners' math achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(4), 569-594. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F016235321103400403
• Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2014). Research on giftedness and gifted education: Status of the field and considerations for the future. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 390-406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527244
• Preckel, F., & Brüll, M. (2008). Grouping the gifted and talented: Are gifted girls most likely to suffer the consequences?. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(1), 54-85. https://doi.org/10.4219%2Fjeg-2008-822
• Preckel, F., & Brüll, M. (2010). The benefit of being a big fish in a big pond: Contrast and assimilation effects on academic self-concept. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 522-531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.12.007
• Preckel, F., Götz, T., & Frenzel, A. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic self‐concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 451-472. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X480716
• Preckel, F., Schmidt, I., Stumpf, E., Motschenbacher, M., Vogl, K., Scherrer, V., & Schneider, W. (2019). High‐ability grouping: Benefits for gifted students’ achievement development without costs in academic self‐concept. Child Development, 90(4), 1185-1201. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12996
• Preckel, F., Schmidt, I., Stumpf, E., Motschenbacher, M., Vogl, K., & Schneider, W. (2017). A test of the reciprocal-effects model of academic achievement and academic self-concept in regular classes and special classes for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(2), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0016986216687824
• Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180-184, 261. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20299281
• Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of Gifted, 23(1), 3-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329902300102
• Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246-279). Cambridge University Press.
• Sak, U. (2012). Üstün zekalılar: Özellikleri tanılanmaları ve eğitimleri [Gifted and talented: Characteristics, identification and education] (2. baskı). Vize Yayıncılık.
• Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 407–441. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543046003407
• Shields, C. M. (2002) A comparison study of student attitudes and perceptions in homogeneous and heterogeneous classrooms, Roeper Review, 24(3), 115-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190209554146
• Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849-899. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654316675417
• Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 3(4), 292-316. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.3.4.292
• Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity, synthesized. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509612
• Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The WICS model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 327-342). Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J. (2009). WICS as a model of giftedness. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert & C. A. Little (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 477-502). Creative Learning Press.
• Tannenbaum, A. J. (2009). Defining, determining, discovering, and developing excellence. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert & C. A. Little (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 503-569). Creative Learning Press.
• Tieso, C. L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore. Roeper Review, 26(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554236
• Tokmak, F., Sak, U., & Akbulut, Y. (2021). Özel yetenekli öğrencilerin akademik benlik algıları üzerinde büyük balık-küçük gölet etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 46(206), 91-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2021.9303
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2015). Üstün zekâlı ve yetenekli öğrencilerin bulunduğu sınıflarda karma öğretim [How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms]. (S. Emir & A. Aksu, Çev.). Anı Yayıncılık. (Orijinal kitabın yayın tarihi 2001)
• VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
• Vogl, K., & Preckel, F. (2014). Full-time ability grouping of gifted students: Impacts on social self-concept and school-related attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0016986213513795
• Vaughn, V. L., Feldhusen, J. F., & Asher, J. W. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(2), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629103500208
• Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
• Yeung, A. S., Chow, A. P. Y., Chow, P. C. W., Luk, F., & Wong, E. K. P. (2004). Academic self-concept of gifted students: When the big fish becomes small. Gifted and Talented International, 19(2), 91-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2004.11673042
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411-436). Cambridge University Press.
• Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2004). Identification based on ENTER within the Conceptual Frame of the Actiotope Model of Giftedness. Psychology Science, 46(3), 324-341. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254561928