Researchers have struggled for decades to determine whether ability grouping is helpful or harmful; however, study findings have been inconsistent. To assess the effect of grouping and program type on scholastic and affective outcomes, three grouping types (gifted separate-class enrichment, pull-out gifted enrichment, and no enrichment), three program types (gifted program, high-ability students not in a gifted program, and average students in regular classes) and a sample of 600 male students were used in this study. Results show that grouping and program type affect students’ scholastic outcomes, with gifted enrichment programs having a significant effect on student learning, and students participating in gifted programs having a significantly more positive self-perception, both scholastically and socially, than do non-participating students. The present results support the grouping of gifted students homogeneously based on cognitive ability, and reinforce the notion that affective outcomes are a complicated issue where the factors are inter-related and capable of influencing students’ perceptions in different ways.
Adams-ByersJWhitsellSSMoonSM (2004) Gifted students’ perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly48: 7–20.
2.
AldrichPWMillsCJ (1989) A special program for highly able rural youth in grades five and six. Gifted Child Quarterly33: 11–14.
3.
AltmanR (1983) Social-emotional development of gifted children and adolescents: A research model. Roeper Review6: 65–68.
4.
BatterjeeA (2010) The efficacy of the total giftedness development model. Gifted and Talented International25(2): 77–90.
5.
BatterjeeA (2013) The relationship between SES and giftedness in Saudi Arabia. Mankind Quarterly53(3): 3–52.
6.
BurnetteJ (1999) Student Groupings for Reading Instruction (ERIC/OSEP Digest E579). Washington, DC: OSEP. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 434 435.)
7.
ByrneBM (1986) Self-concept/academic achievement relations: An investigation of dimensionality, stability, and causality. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science18: 173–186.
CarterKR (1986) A cognitive outcomes study to evaluate curriculum for the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted10: 41–55.
10.
ColemanJMFultsBA (1982) Effects of the use of a writing scale by gifted primary students. Gifted Child Quarterly27: 114–121.
11.
ColemanJMFultsBA (1983) Self-concept and the gifted child. Roeper Review5: 44–47.
12.
ColemanLJCrossTL (2001) Being Gifted in School. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
13.
CoopersmithS (1967) The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
14.
CornellD (1990) High ability students who are unpopular with their peers. Gifted Child Quarterly34: 155–160.
15.
CoxJDanielN (1984) The pull-out model. Gifted Child Today34: 55–61.
16.
CoxJDanielNBostonBO (1985) Educating Able Learners: Programs and Promising Practices. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
17.
CrossTL (2007) Social and Emotional Issues of Gifted Adolescents. Paper presented at the Opportunities for the Future conference, Center for Talent Development, Northwestern University: Evanston, IL, June 2007.
18.
DelcourtMCornellDGoldbergM (2007) Cognitive and affective learning outcomes of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly51: 359–381.
19.
DelcourtMALoydBHCornellDG (1994) Evaluation of the Effects of Programming Arrangements on Student Learning Outcomes. Charlottesville, VA: NRC/GT.
20.
DelcourtMABEvansK (1995) The Qualitative Extension of the Learning Outcomes Study (Report No. RM940710). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
21.
DriscollMP (2005) Psychology of Learning and Instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
22.
EapenVNaqviAAl-DhaheriA (2000) Cross cultural validation of Harter’s Self-Perception Profile for Children in the United Arab Emirates. Annals of Saudi Medicine20(1): 8–11.
23.
EriksonEH (1963) Childhood and Society (2nd ed., rev.). New York: Norton.
24.
FeldhusenJF (1986) A conception of giftedness. In: SternbergRJDavidsonJE (eds) Conceptions of Giftedness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.112–127.
25.
FeldhusenJFSaylerMFNielsenME (1990) Self-concepts of gifted children in enrichment programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted13: 380–387.
26.
GallagherJCourtrightRD (1986) The educational definition of giftedness and its policy implications. In: SternbergRJDavidsonJE (eds) Conceptions of Giftedness. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, pp.93–111.
27.
GallagherJJ (1986) The need for programs for young gifted children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education6: 1–8.
28.
GallagherJJWeissPOglesbyK (1983) The Status of Gifted/Talented Education: United States Surveys of Needs, Practices, and Policies. Ventura County, CA: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Office.
29.
GavinMKCasaTMAdelsonJL (2009) The impact of advanced curriculum on the achievement of mathematically promising elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly53: 188–202.
30.
GoldringEB (1990) Assessing the status of information on classroom organizational frameworks for gifted students. Journal of Educational Research83: 313–326.
31.
GrossMUM (1989) The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review11: 189–194.
32.
HarterS (1982) The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development53: 87–97.
33.
HarterS (1983) Developmental perspectives on self-esteem. In: HetheringtonEH (ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4, Socialization, Personality, and Social Development. New York: Wiley, pp.275–385.
34.
HarterS (1986) Processes underlying the construction, maintenance, and enhancement of the self-concept in children. In: SulsJGreenwaldAG (eds) Psychological Perspectives on the Self, Vol. 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.139–181.
35.
HarterS (2012) Self-Perception Profile for Children: Manual and Questionnaires (Grades 3–8). Denver, CO: University of Denver.
36.
HarterSConnellJ P (1984) A model of the relationship among children’s academic achievement and their self-perceptions of competence, control, and motivational orientation. In: NichollsJ (ed.) The Development of Achievement Motivation. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
37.
HarterSZimpfC (1986) Social Comparison Process Influencing the Self-Perceptions of Gifted Children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
38.
HarterSWhitesellNKowalskiP (1986) The impact of educational transitions upon children’s perceived competence and motivational orientation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver.
39.
HogeRD (1988) Issues in the definition and measurement of giftedness construct. Educational Researcher17: 12–16.
40.
HogeRD (1989) An examination of the giftedness construct. Canadian Journal of Education14: 6–17.
41.
HogeRDRenzulliJS (1991) Self-Concept and the Gifted Child (Research-based Decision Making Series No. 9103). Storrs, CT: The University of Connecticut; The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
42.
HollingworthLS (1942) Children above 180 IQ, Stanford-Binet. New York: World Book.
43.
HoogeveenLvan HellJVerhoevenL (2009) Self-concept and social status of accelerated and non-accelerated students in the first 2 years of secondary school in the Netherlands. Gifted Child Quarterly53: 50–67.
44.
JanosPMRobinsonNM (1985) Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In: HorowitzFDO’BrienM (eds) The Gifted and Talented: Developmental Perspectives. Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association, pp.149–195.
45.
JarwanF (2004) Giftedness, Superiority, and Creativity (2nd Ed.). Amman: Dar Alfikr.
46.
KelleyR (1962) Enrichment in high school science and mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly6: 111–113.
47.
KrathwohlDBloomBMasiaB (1964) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc.
48.
KulikJA (2003) Grouping and tracking. In: ColangeloNDavisGA (eds) Handbook of Gifted Education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, pp.268–281.
49.
KulikJAKulikCC (1987) Effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equity and Excellence23: 22–30.
50.
KulikJAKulikCC (1991) Ability grouping and gifted students. In: ColangeloNDavisGA (eds) Handbook of Gifted Education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, pp.178–196.
KurdekLAKrileD (1982) A developmental analysis of the relation between peer acceptance and both interpersonal understanding and perceived social self-competence. Child Development53: 1485–1491.
LeveySDolanJ (1988) Addressing specific learning abilities in gifted students. Gifted Child Today11(3): 10–11.
55.
LouYAbramiPCSpenceJC (1996) Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research66: 423–458.
56.
LynchSMillsCJ (1990) The skills reinforcement project (SRP): An academic program for high potential minority youth. Journal for the Education of the Gifted13: 363–379.
57.
MarshHWO’NeillR (1984) Self description questionnaire III: The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement21(2): 153–174.
58.
MarshHWByrneBMShavelsonR (1988) A multifaceted academic self-concept: Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology80: 366–380.
MontemayorR (1984) Changes in parents and peer relationships between childhood and adolescence: A research agenda for gifted adolescence. Journal for the Education of the Gifted8: 9–23.
62.
MorelockM (1992) Giftedness: The view from within. Understanding Our Gifted4(3): 11–14.
63.
National Association for Gifted Children (2009) State of the States in Gifted Education: National Policy and Practice Data 2008-2009 (Report by the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted and the National Association for Gifted Children). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
64.
NugentS (2006) A case of affective education: Addressing the social and emotional needs of gifted students in the classroom. Virginia Association for the Gifted1–3.
65.
OlenchakFR (1990) School change through gifted education: Effects on elementary students’ attitudes toward learning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted14: 66–78.
66.
PiagetJ (1965[1932]) The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: The Free Press.
67.
ReisSM (1981) TAG serves the gifted and talented. Today’s Education70: 22E–25E.
68.
ReisSMWestbergKLKulikowichJ (1993) Why Not Let High-Ability Students Start School in January? The Curriculum Compacting Study (Research Monograph 93106). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
69.
RenzulliJS (1978) What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan60: 180–184, 261.
70.
RenzulliJS (1986) The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In: SternbergRJDavidsonJE (eds) Conceptions of Giftedness. NY: Cambridge University Press, pp.246–279.
71.
RenzulliJReisS (1985) The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A Comprehensive Plan for Educational Excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
72.
RobertsCIngramCHarrisC (1992) The effect of special versus regular classroom programming on higher cognitive processes of intermediate elementary aged gifted and average ability students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted15: 332–343.
73.
RobertsJ (2005) Enrichment Opportunities for Gifted Learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc.
74.
RobinsonNM (2007) Parenting young gifted children: What are the essentials?Paper presented at the Opportunities for the Future conference, June 2007, Center for Talent Development, Northwestern University: Evanston, IL.
75.
RobinsonNM (2008) The social world of gifted children and youth. In: PfeifferSI (ed.) Handbook of Giftedness in Children: Psychoeducational Theory, Research, and Best Practices. New York, NY: Springer, pp.33–51.
76.
RogersCMSmithMDColemanJM (1978) Social comparison in the classroom: The relationship between academic achievement and self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology70(1): 50–57.
77.
RogersK (2007) Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly51: 382–396.
78.
Rose-KrasnorL (1997) The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social Development6: 111–135.
79.
SchneiderBH (1987) The Gifted Child in Peer Group Perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.
SilvermanLK (1993) Counseling the Gifted and Talented. Denver, CO: Love.
82.
SteinbergLSilverbergSR (1986) The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child Development57: 841–851.
83.
VanTassel-BaskaJBrownE (2007) Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly51: 342–358.
84.
VanTassel-BaskaJWillisGBMeyerD (1989) Evaluation of a full-time self-contained class for gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly33: 7–10.
85.
VanTassel-BaskaJZuoLAveryLD (2002) A curriculum study of gifted student learning in language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly46: 30–44.
86.
VaughnVLFeldhusenJFAsherJW (1991) Meta analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly35: 92–98.
87.
WhitmoreJR (1980) Giftedness, Conflict, and Underdevelopment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
88.
WorrellFC (2005) Global and domain-specific self-concepts in academically talented Asian American and White adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly46: 90–97.
