User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 29 |  Issue 1 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Bagley, W. (1931). The textbook and methods of instruction. In G. Whipple (Ed.), The textbook in American education, Thirtieth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2 (pp. 7–26). Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing.
  • Bechtol, W. M., & Sorenson, J. S. (1993). Restructuring schooling for individual students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Benbow, C. P. (1998). Grouping intellectually advanced students for instruction. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (pp. 279–294). Denver: Love.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1995). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Bruner, J. S. (1975). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Burns, D. E., & Reis, S. M. (1991). Developing a thinking skills component in the gifted education program. Roeper Review, 72, 72–79.
  • Burstein, L. (1980). Issues in the aggregation of data. In D. C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 8, pp. 158–233). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  • Cawelti, G. (1999). Handbook of research on improving student achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1890–1980. New York: Longman.
  • Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E. P., & Mark, J. (1995). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curriculum. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
  • Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. A. (1994). The education of the gifted and talented. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Delisle, R. (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Dettmer, P., & Landrum, M. (Eds.). (1998). Staff development: The key to effective gifted education programs. Washington, DC: The National Association for Gifted Children.
  • Erickson, H. L. (1998). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond the facts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Feldhusen, J. F. (1989). Program models for gifted education. In J. F. Feldhusen, J. VanTassel-Baska, & K. Seeley, (Eds.). Excellence in educating the gifted (pp. 263–289). Denver: Love.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted students: Issues and concerns. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 63–67.
  • Flanders, J. R. (1987). How much of the content in mathematics textbooks is new? Arithmetic Teacher, 35(1), 18–23.
  • Floyd, C. (1954). Meeting children’s reading needs in the middle grades: A preliminary report. The Elementary School Journal, 55, 99–103.
  • Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain: Measuring attitudes and values in corporate and school settings. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  • Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1994). Looking in classrooms. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Goodlad, J. L. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Grouws, D. A., & Cebulla, K. J. (1999). Mathematics. In G. Cawelti (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving student achievement (pp. 117–134). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
  • Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Kaplan, S. N. (1986). The grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 180–193). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Kulik, C-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 414–428.
  • Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54, 409–425.
  • Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1990). Ability grouping and gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C-L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73–77.
  • Levin, H. M. (1987). Accelerated schools for disadvantaged students. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 19–21.
  • Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.
  • Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishing.
  • Mills, C. J., Ablard, K. E., & Gustin, W. C. (1994). Academically talented students’ achievement in a flexibly paced mathematics program. Mathematics Achievement, 25, 495–509.
  • National Center for Education Statistics: Common Core of Data Survey [Electronic database]. (1997). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). 2000 Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  • Passow, A. H. (1962). Differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented. Ventura, CA: Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and Talented.
  • Paul, R., Binker, A. J. A., Jensen, K., & Kreklau, H. (1990). Critical thinking handbook: 4th–6th grades: A guide for remodelling lesson plans in language arts, social studies, & science. Rohnert Park, CA: The Center for Thinking and Moral Critique.
  • Phenix, P. H. (1958). Philosophy of education. New York: Hold and Company.
  • Phenix, P. H. (1964). Realms of meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hébert, T., Plucker, J., et al. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1988). The multiple menu model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 298–309.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Renzulli, J. S., Leppien, J. H., & Hays, T. S. (2000). The multiple menu model: Practical guide for developing differentiated curriculum. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Rogers, K. A. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Rogers, K. A. (1993). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers. Roeper Review, 16, 8–12.
  • Schack, G., & Starko, A. J. (1998). Research comes alive: Guidebook for conducting original research with middle and high school students. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning theories. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293–336.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 67–76.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
  • Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Tomchin, E. M., Landrum, M., Imbeau, M., et al. (1995). Preservice teacher preparation in meeting the needs of gifted and other academically diverse students. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. A., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J., Leppien, J., & Burns, D. E. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). The no child left behind act of 2001. Retrieved September 12, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instructional models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 164–169.
  • Walberg, H. J. (1985). Instructional theories and research evidence. In M. C. Wang & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Adapting instruction to individual differences (pp. 3–23). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Company.
  • Ward, V. S. (1980). Differential education for the gifted. Ventura, CA: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Office.
  • Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S., & Salvin, T. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 29
  •  Issue 1
  • Publication Date: Fall 2005



The Effects of Grouping Practices and Curricular Adjustments on Achievement

Carol Tieso

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of curricular (textbook, revised, and differentiated) and grouping (whole, between, and within-class) practices on intermediate students’ achievement in mathematics. A pretest-posttest, quasi-experimental design using a stratified random sample of 31 teachers and their students (N = 645) was used in this study. Achievement data were collected using a curriculum-based assessment. Repeated measures analysis of variance was employed to investigate The Effects of Grouping arrangements and curricular design on the treatment and comparison group posttest scores. Results indicated significant differences, F (5, 246) = 22.618, p <. 001, between comparison and revision treatment groups on the posttest after adjusting for grade level (4 or 5). Further results indicated significant differences, F (11, 673) = 41.548, p <. 001, among all treatment groups after adjusting for grade level.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.