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.
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.
