Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research "Learning With 'Stronger Peers' Yields No Boost"

Just glanced at this, but passing it along. Need to look at the actual study.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131211093926.htm

Yikes. I've always been suspect of educators who maintain the students need role models and that's why the gifted should not be advanced or placed in a clustered class.

However, this article's potential for misunderstanding worries me. I'm afraid its premise will be read as :there's no proven benefit for gifted education.

And if that were the case I would argue that it would be because very few gifted education settings really meet the needs of the students.

Well, but I think that IS what it suggests-- that if your reason for having a GT program is to "elevate" performance, then it's fundamentally a flawed program, because it has no demonstrable "impact" on students.

By extension, of course, it also suggests that (obviously) the argument used against ability grouping is deeply flawed.

But aren't GT programs about appropriate education for the children who need them, anyway? Hmmm-- yeah, I know-- not really, in a lot of instances. It's all about "measurable" gains now, but clearly this suggests that inappropriately high expectations are not really beneficial in and of themselves-- er-- at least not in elevating test performance.

I think this is like comparing two groups and asking "do vitamins make kids healthier?" by looking at illnesses and hospitalizations, however. In kids that NEED supplementation because of underlying medical conditions, the answer is unquestionably "YES" but in kids that just eat a lot of fast food, the answer is probably nowhere near as clear-cut as that. {sigh}

Yes, I see what you're saying.
There must have been a reason they chose to focus on the marginal students, but I couldn't really see what it was or what doing so serves...but now I understand it may mean gifted education is NOT doing what it should.

It is the kind of flawed logic that people often use about gifted programmes. Mostly they do extension which wouldn't increase scores in basic fields anyway. The fact the kids haven't dropped out, resorted to drugs to numb the boredom or killed themselves is actually quite a success. It is about appropriate education not test scores.

The linked article fails to make an important separation of two factors. Hopefully the actual research paper addresses this.

In a gifted/tracked class two things may happen.
(1) The peers are stronger.
(2) More advanced material is taught.

It is unsurprising if (1) has little or no effect. But surely (2) teaching more advanced material, should lead to more advanced learning, and higher test scores. I can think of various reasons why this may not be found in certain situations, but it is abysmal journalism that the difference between (1) and (2) was not addressed.

Yes!!!

Exactly-- and they aren't (well, except in the lottery magnet case) looking at students who probably have an unquestionable, clear-cut NEED for differentiated education to begin with.

89th percentile versus 91st... er...

not the same thing as 99th.

Looking at a group of kids in the 99th percentile that do (or do not) have access to appropriate education would be the really interesting study, but, as puffin notes, the endpoints that one would be looking for there look quite different, as well.

It's not about grade-level test scores.

Not for this cohort, I mean.

They chose marginal students because they wanted to compare like students in different environments.

So if, say, a school district has a G/T program in which a 120 IQ gets you in, they chose to study kids with a 122-120 (those that barely made the cut) and compare to those kids with a 117-199 (those that barely missed it). There's almost no difference in ability between the two groups, but one group got to sit with the best students in the school, and one didn't.

This study only says what happens for less-able students when placed with gifted peers. It says nothing about the gifted at all... it merely notes their effects on the other children around them.

DD8 provided a perfect example last night as to why she'd have little effect on a same-age learner, when she helped another 8yo with her reading. DD was too quick to give corrections whenever the other child stumbled, rather than letting the other child work it out on her own, and providing hints or suggestions. This prevented the other 8yo from learning as much as she could have otherwise, had she been working with an adult. Obviously, DD is no teacher... she's 8.

Thanks for your take on it, Dude. As always, insightful.