For instance, the "more recent review" you linked to in the previous thread is not a meta-analysis, nor even a study. It's clearly an opinion piece. It's interesting reading, but I suspect it was heavily cherry-picked.
The Kulik paper at the beginning of the old thread and the Benbow article linked to yesterday both had 13 pages of references. The Kulik paper summarizes results of a lot of previous studies.
Several research groups have carried out meta-analyses on grouping findings.
Among the most comprehensive analyses are those carried out by Robert Slavin at Johns Hopkins University and those conducted by my research group at the University of Michigan. These meta-analyses show that different grouping programs produce different effects. Some programs have little or no effect on students, other programs have moderate effects, and still other programs have large effects. The key distinction is among (a) programs in which all ability groups follow the same curriculum; (b) programs in which all groups follow curricula adjusted to their ability; and (c) programs that make curricular and other adjustments for the special needs of highly talented learners.
It seems odd to call them opinion pieces when they have so many references to support author claims, as well as so many summaries of other studies.
I remember going down this road with you in the thread about TJ High School. You kept asking for peer-reviewed studies that supported links between better nutrition and better performance in school. Nothing I provided was good enough for you, yet you didn't provide any alternatives. I'm wondering what your motivation was at this point, and what you're looking for. I'm sure you're not asking us to find or analyze papers for you.
Maybe you should provide some papers and an analysis.
