Information, news and resources for high ability students and their advocates.

 

Important Points About Grouping High Ability Students

• Academically, high achieving or gifted and talented students achieve more and learn more when they are grouped with other high achieving students, homogeneous grouping, as opposed to placed in mixed ability groups, heterogeneous grouping, (e.g., Cornell, Delcourt, Goldberg, & Bland, 1992; Gamoran & Berends, 1987; Gentry & Owens, 1999; Gossen, 1996; Goldring, 1990; Kerckhoff, 1986; Kulik & Kulik, 1991, 1992; Rogers, 1991, 1993; Shields, 1995; Slavin, 1987).

• Ability grouping has even stronger effects on achievement for high-ability black and Hispanic youth (Page & Keith, 1996).

• The performance of the remaining students in heterogeneous classes does not suffer when gifted students are removed from the classroom (e.g., Kulik & Kulik, 1982; 1987; Page & Keith, 1996; Shields, 1995). In fact, some research suggests that lower achieving students actually have increased achievement when gifted students are removed from the regular classroom (e.g., Gentry & Owen; 1999; Kennedy, 1992; Natriello, Pallas, & Alexander, 1989)

• Proponents of heterogeneous grouping argue that high achieving students serve as role models for less able, struggling students. This is NOT the case. Average and low ability students model on children of like abilities, not on students of high ability (e.g., France-Kaatrude & Smith, 1985; Feldhusen, 1989; Schunk, 1985; 1990).

• Lower achieving students do not experience decreases in self-esteem or self-confidence when high achieving students are not in the classroom, and may actually experience increases in these areas (e.g., Kulik, 1985; Kulik & Kulik, 1984, 1990; Shields, 1995)

• When grouped with high achieving students, struggling students have lowered academic self-esteem (Kenny, Archambault, & Hallmark, 1995).

• High achieving students have more realistic appraisals of their abilities when placed in groups with other high performing students. This sort of grouping may also lead to small declines in their self-esteem as compared to when they are in heterogeneously grouped classes (e.g., Dorsel & Wages, 1993; Lou et al., 1996; Melser, 1999)

Other points to consider:

• Research indicates that teachers teach to the ability level of the 23rd percentile of their class (Arlin & Westbury, 1976; see also Harlen & Malcom, 1997). This means that the more heterogeneous the classroom the greater the disparity between the abilities of the top performing students and the level and pace of classroom instruction.

• While teachers may think that they are differentiating instruction, research shows that they do not engage in differentiation as often as they think, spending upwards of 80% of class time in whole class instruction. (e.g., Harlen & Malcom, 1997)

• Students at different levels of ability require different types of instruction. Gamoran, Nystrand, Berends, & LePore (1995) found the teaching approach that worked best for high achieving students was very different from the teaching approach that was most successful for struggling students, see also Snow (1989).

Expecting all children the same age to learn from the same materials is like expecting all children the same age to wear the same size clothing. - Madeline Hunter

 

Download an annotated list of references.

 

Other online resources

• Ability Grouping, Tracking, & Alternatives - a collection of resources from Working to Improve Schools and Education (WISE) at Ithaca College

• "Tracking and Ability Grouping:" a collection of links to substantial articles provided by the Swarthmore Math Forum

• The Tracking Wars: State Reform Meets School Policy (1999) by Tom Loveless - Very measured, even-handed, thoroughly researched and nuanced; deeply appreciative of the complexity of the issue and rejecting of simplistic solutions. The full text of this book can be read online.

• Abadzi, H. (1985). Ability grouping effects on academic achievement and self-esteem: Who performs in the long run as expected. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 36-40.
• Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S. S., & Moon, S. M. (2004). Gifted students' perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogenous and heterogeneous grouping . Gifted Child Quarterly , 48, 7-20.

• Allan, S. D. (1991). Ability-Grouping Research Reviews: What Do They Say about Grouping and the Gifted?. Educational Leadership, - helps readers understand and synthesize the results of Slavin (1986; 1990) and Kulik & Kulik (1984, 1986).
• Bleske-Rechek, A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2004). Meeting the educational needs of special populations.  Advance placement's role in developing exceptional human capital.  Psychological Science, 15, 217-224.
• Cheung, C. -K. & Rudowicz, E. (2003). Academic outcomes of ability grouping among junior high school students in Hong Kong. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, 241-254.
• Delisle, J. R. (2000). Mom...apple pie...and differentiation, Gifted Child Today
• Duflo, E., Dupas, P. & Kremer, M. (2007). Peer effects, pupil-teacher ratios, and teacher incentives: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in Kenya

• Feldhusen, J. (1991). Susan Allan Sets the Record Straight: Response to Allan. Educational Leadership
• 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,  Special Issue: A quarter century of ideas on ability grouping and acceleration. pp. 108-111.
• Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Owen, S. V. (2002). Examining perceptions of challenge and choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and their students and comparisons between gifted students and other students . Gifted Student Quarterly , 46, 145-155.
• Grossen (1996). How should we group to achieve excellence with equity?

• Harlen, W. & Malcolm, H. (1999). Setting and streaming: A research review. A review conducted by the SCRE an educational research center at the University of Glasgow, Scottland; streaming refers to tracking and setting refers to grouping by ability.

• Holloway, J. H. (2003). Grouping gifted students.
• Kulik, J. (1993). An analysis of the research on ability grouping. Eric Digest, 397, 95
• Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2000). Differentiation, Research, Evidence, and Implications for Practice. Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, Director, Center for Talent Development, Northwestern University addresses the members of the Indiana Integrated Services Team at the Differentiation by Design Conference, Thursday, November 16, 2000.

• Page, E. & Keith, T. (1996). The elephant in the classroom, Intellectual Talent, Johns Hopkins University Press
• Reed, C. F. (2004). Mathematically gifted in the heterogeneously grouped mathematics classroom: What is a teacher to do?. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Eductation, 15(3), 89-95.

• Rogers, K. B. (1993). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers, Roeper Review, 16

• Rogers, K. B. (1998). Using current research to make "good" decisions about grouping
• Thompson, M. C. (1998) Kulik and Kulik revisted. Our Gifted Children - a summary of Kulik & Kulik's (1987) meta analysis and then Thompson addresses some other issues with findings from more recent literature.

• Tieso, C. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore, Roeper Review, 26
• Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Differentiating Instruction for Advanced Learners in the Mixed-Ability Middle School Classroom. Eric Digests #536 - a useful summary of a number of important issues.

If you are in need of more articles than we have listed here, you can check out this bibliography compiled by Joseph Renzulli from the National Resource Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S. S., & Moon, S. M. (2004). Gifted students' perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogenous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly , 48, 7-20.


• Basic Finding:  On the whole students perceived homogenous groupings to offer the greatest number of academic advantages.  Seventy five percent of negative comments the students reported about mixed ability grouping related to these groupings offering less challenge, slower pace, repetition, and boredom.  A finding of concern to the authors was that some of these students preferred mixed ability classes because they were easier and they could achieve a high academic ranking with little effort.  Regarding the social and emotional aspects of grouping, students perceived heterogeneous grouping as more advantageous.  However, this finding needs some explanation because parents and educators might likely find the disadvantages reported by these students regarding homogeneous grouping to be exactly the sorts of experiences that these high ability students could benefit from.  For instance, a number of students reported concerns with losing their class ranking and worries about a loss of self-esteem once they were no longer the best student in the classroom.  It should also be noted that a quarter of these students reported no social/emotional or academic disadvantages to being placed in homogeneous classes with their high ability peers. [ back to top ]


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,  Special Issue: A quarter century of ideas on ability grouping and acceleration. pp. 108-111.


• Basic Finding [back to top ]



Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Owen, S. V. (2002). Examining perceptions of challenge and choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and their students and comparisons between gifted students and other students. Gifted Student Quarterly, 46 , 145-155.


• Basic Finding:  This study examined students in 155 diverse classrooms, surveying both students and teachers.  There was no relation between what teachers reported doing in the classroom to meet the needs of high achieving students and what students reported was being done to address the issues of challenge in the classroom.  This is consistent with other studies that examined the relations between teacher's perceptions of what is happening in the classroom and what students or participant observers report (American Association of University Women, 1995, 1999; Hagborg, 1994; Tomlinson et al., 1994).  Students who were in special schools for the gifted did report more challenge than students in regular education classes and schools.  In their review of the literature, the authors note Vgotsky's (1962) idea that intellectual development requires difficult tasks.  They also point out that studies find that little differentiation of instruction or curricula occurs for academically advanced students in regular classrooms (e.g., Archambault et al., 1993, Reis et al., 1993).[ back to top ]

 

Grossen (1996). How should we group to achieve excellence with equity?

• "The research cited in support of dismantling achievement grouping systems at best finds that the effects of achievement and mixed-ability grouping are the same (Slavin, 1990). The implication of this research is that low achievers will likely remain unsuccessful in "detracked" schools. The challenge remains for schools to improve the achievement levels of these low achieving children. There is no equity without excellence.

  Several models demonstrate what traditionally low-performing groups of children are capable of achieving, both children of poverty and children with disabilities. All of these models incorporate a well designed, highly demanding, continuously evaluated curriculum and instructional program, and a set of highly reliable implementation techniques. The search for equity cannot ignore these results." [ back to top ]