User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 32 |  Issue 1 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Blanton, H. (2001). Evaluating the self in the context of another: The tree-selves model of social comparison assimilation and contrast. In G. B. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 75–87). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Blanton, H., Buunk, B. P., Gibbons, F. X., & Kuyper, H. (1999). When better-than-others compare upward: Choice of comparison and comparative evaluation as independent predictors of academic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 420–430.
  • Burleson, K. A. P. (2005). Social comparisons at gifted schools for the arts: Qualifications for the big fish little pond effect. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 66,1195.
  • Burleson, K. A. P., Leach, C. W., & Harrington, D. M. (2005). Upward social comparison and self-concept: Inspiration and inferiority among art students in an advanced programme. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 109–123.
  • Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). On the structure of social self-concept for pre-, early, and late adolescents: A test of the Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 599–613.
  • Carter, R., & Wojtkiewicz, R. A. (2000). Parental involvement with adolescents’ education: Do daughters or sons get more help? Adolescence, 35, 29–44.
  • Catsambis, S., Mulkey, L. M., & Crain, R. L. (1999). To track or not to track? The social effects of gender and middle school tracking. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 12, 135–163.
  • Catsambis, S., Mulkey, L. M., & Crain, R. L. (2001). For better or for worse? A nationwide study of the social psychological effects of gender and ability grouping in mathematics. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 83–115.
  • Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (foot-ball) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366–375.
  • Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2000). Social-emotional development and the personal experience of giftedness. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), international handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd. ed., pp. 203–212). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
  • Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Print, M. (2000). Gifted, streamed, and mixed-ability programs for gifted students: Impact on self-concept, motivation, and achievement. Australian Journal of Education, 44, 51–75.
  • Cross, T. L. (2005). The social and emotional lives of gifted kids: Understanding and guiding their development. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  • Dai, D. Y. (2004). How universal is the big-fish-little-pond effect? American Psychologist, 59, 267–268.
  • Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
  • Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
  • Eccles, J. S., Adler, T., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26–43.
  • Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 28, 1–11.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., & Jarvan, F. A. (2000). Identification of gifted and talented youth for educational programs. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F Subotnik (Eds.), international handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 233–252). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
  • Fend, H., & Prester, H. G. (Eds.). (1986). Dokumentation der Skalen des Projekts “Entwicklung im Jugendalter” [Scale documentation of the project “development of adolescents”]. Konstanz, Germany: Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Konstanz.
  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
  • Fiedler, E. D., Lange, R. E., & Winebrenner, S. (2002). In search of reality: Unraveling myths about tracking, ability grouping, and the gifted. roeper Review, 24, 108–112.
  • Freeman, J. (2004). Cultural influences on gifted gender achievement. High Ability Studies, 15, 7–23.
  • Goetz, T., Preckel, F., Zeidner, M., & Schleyer, E. J. (2008). Anxiety of big fish swimming in big ponds: A multilevel analysis of test anxiety and achievement in special gifted classes. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 21, 185–198.
  • Goldring, E. B. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom organisational frameworks for gifted students. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 313–326.
  • Gross, M. U. M. (2000). Issues in the cognitive development of exceptionally and profoundly gifted individuals. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 179–192). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
  • Harvey, J., & Katz, C. (1985). if I’m so successful why do I feel like a fake: the impostor phenomenon. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  • Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2000). Kognitiver fähigkeitstest für 4. bis 12. Klassen, Revision (KFT 4–12+R) [Cognitive ability test for class level 4 to 12, revised version]. Göttingen; Germany: Hogrefe.
  • Heller, K. A., & Ziegler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and the natural sciences: Can attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females? Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 200–210.
  • Herbert, J., & Stipek, D. (2005). The emergence of gender differences in children’s perceptions of their academic competence. Journal of Applied developmental Psychology, 26, 276–295.
  • Holling, H., & Preckel, F. (2005). Self-estimation of intelligence—methodological approaches and gender differences. Personality and individual Differences, 38, 503–517.
  • Huguet, P., Dumas, F., Monteil, J. M., & Genestoux, N. (2001). Social comparison choices in the classroom: Further evidence for students’ upward comparison tendency and its beneficial impact on performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 557–578.
  • Kerr, B. A. (1997). Smart girls: a new psychology of girls, women and giftedness (Rev. ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
  • Kerr, B. A., & Nicpon, M. F. (2003). Gender and giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 493–505). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Köller, O. (2004). Konsequenzen von Leistungsgruppierungen [Effects of ability grouping]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
  • Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2001). Leistungsgruppierungen in der Sekundarstufe I und ihre Konsequenzen für die Mathematikleistung und das mathematische Selbstkonzept der Begabung [Ability grouping in secondary school and its effects for achievement and academic self-concept in mathematics]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 15, 99–110.
  • Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equity and Excellence, 23, 22–30.
  • Le Maistre, C., & Kanevsky, L. (1996). Factors influencing the realization of exceptional mathematical ability in girls: An analysis of the research. High Ability Studies, 8, 31–46.
  • Lips, H. M. (2004). The gender gap in possible selves: Divergence of academic self-views among high school and university students. Sex roles, 50, 357–371.
  • Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted: Implications for the math/science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 61–66.
  • Marsh, H. W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 280–295.
  • Marsh, H. W. (1990). Self-description Questionnaire-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
  • Marsh, H. W. (2005). Big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. German Journal of Educational Psychology, 19, 119–127.
  • Marsh, H. W., Chessor, D., Craven, R., & Roche, L. (1995). The effect of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 285–319.
  • Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. (2002). The pivotal role of frames of reference in academic self-concept formation: The big-fish-little-pond effect. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education (Vol. 2, pp. 83–123). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
  • Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. T. (2003). Big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept: A cross-cultural (26–country) test of the negative effects of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58, 364–376.
  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Craven, R. (2004). The big-fish-little-pond effect stands up to scrutiny. American Psychologist, 59, 269–271.
  • Marsh, H. W., Kong, C. K., & Hau, K. T. (2000). Longitudinal multilevel models of the big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept: Counterbalancing contrast and reflected-glory effects in Hong Kong. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 337–349.
  • Marsh, H. W., & Parker, J. W. (1984). Determinants of self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 213–231.
  • Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development, 76, 397–416.
  • McFarland, C., & Buehler, R. (1995). Collective self-esteem as a moderator of the frog-pond effect in reactions to performance feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1055–1070.
  • McGuire, W. J., & McGuire, C. V. (1988). Context and process in the experience of self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 97–144). New York: Academic Press.
  • Meisel, C. J., & Blumberg, C. J. (1990). The social comparison choices of elementary and secondary school students: The influence of gender, race, and friendship. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 170–182.
  • Möller, J., & Köller, O. (1998). Leistungs- und geschlechtsbezogene Vergleiche in der Schule [Achievement and gender related comparisons in school]. Empirische Pädagogik, 12, 119–131.
  • Morelock, M. J., & Feldman, D. H. (2003). Extreme precocity: Prodigies, savants, and children of extraordinarily high IQ. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 455–469). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Muller, C. (1998). Gender differences in parental involvement and adolescents’ mathematics achievement. Sociology of Education, 71, 336–356.
  • Plucker, J. A., Robinson, N. M., Greenspon, T. S., Feldhusen, J. F. McCoach, D. B., & Subotnik, R. F. (2004). It’s not how the pond makes you feel, but rather how high you can jump. American Psychologist, 59, 268–269.
  • Preckel, F., Zeidner, M., Goetz, T., & Schleyer, E. (2008). Female “big fish” swimming against the tide: The “big-fish-little-pond effect” and gender-ratio in special gifted classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 78–96.
  • Reis, S. M. (1987). We can’t change what we don’t recognize: Understanding the special needs of gifted females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 83–89.
  • Reis, S. M. (1998). Work left undone: Compromises and challenges of talented females. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Reuman, D. A. (1989). How social comparison mediates the relations between ability-grouping practices and students’ achievement expectancies in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 178–189.
  • Rindermann, H., & Heller, K. A. (2005). The benefit of gifted classes and talent schools for developing students’ competences and enhancing academic self-concept. German Journal of Educational Psychology, 19, 133–136.
  • Rogers, K. B. (1993). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers. Roeper Review, 16, 8–12.
  • Schöne, C., Dickhäuser, O., Spinath, B., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2003). Das Fähigkeitsselbstkonzept und seine Erfassung [Academic self-concept and its assessment]. In J. Stiensmeier-Pelster & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von Motivation und Selbstkonzept: Tests und Trends, Jahrbuch der pädagogisch-psychologischen Diagnostik, Band 2 (pp. 3–14). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
  • Shavelson, R., Hubner, J., & Stanton, G. (1976). self-concept: Validation and construct interpretation. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407–441.
  • Shields, C. M. (2002). A comparison study of student attitudes and perceptions in homogeneous and heterogeneous classrooms. Roeper Review, 24, 115–119.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1986). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. (Rep. No. 1). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.
  • Smith, H. J., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Group membership and everyday social comparison experiences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 297–308.
  • Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. (1971). Cognitive Abilities Test. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
  • Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A systematic review. Educational Psychologist, 39, 111–133.
  • Wagner, J. W. L. ( 1999). Soziale Vergleiche und Selbsteinschätzungen [Social comparisons and self-estimates]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
  • Wagner, J. W. L. (2001). Leistungsvergleiche in der Schule. Bezugsgruppeneffekte und Fähigkeitskonzepte (Psychologie, Bd. 39) [Comparisons of achievement in school. Reference-group effects and academic self-concepts (Psychology, Vol. 39)]. Landau, Germany: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.
  • Wheeler, L., & Miyake, K. (1992). Social comparison in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 760–773.
  • Zeidner, M., & Schleyer, E. J. (1998). The big-fish-little-pond effect for academic self-concept, test anxiety, and school grades in gifted children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 305–329.
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 32
  •  Issue 1
  • Publication Date: Fall 2008
  • Page Number(s): 54-85
  • DOI: 10.4219/jeg-2008-822



Grouping the Gifted and Talented: Are Gifted Girls Most Likely to Suffer the Consequences?

Franzis Preckel and Matthias Brüll

This study analyzes the effects of ability grouping on self-concept measures in a sample of 211 German students in their 1st year at the top track of secondary school (grade level 5; mean age: 10.46 years). 156 students, 55% of whom were female, attended regular classes, while 46 students, of whom 33% were female, attended special classes for the gifted. Students in both groups were assessed repeatedly, 3 times via self-report questionnaires and once by applying a standardized IQ test. in line with our hypotheses, we found that the students in the gifted classes reported a comparable decrease in general academic self-concept, math academic self-concept, and German academic self-concept over time. Decreases were largest early in the academic year. There was no decrease in social self-concept but instead an increase for the students in the gifted group. However, this increase did not persist, so that by the time of the last measurement the gifted reported lower social self-concept than the nongifted. Also in line with our expectations, the decrease in academic self-concept was largest for girls attending special gifted classes. it is worth noting that the largest decrease in academic self-concept of gifted girls occurred before students received any teacher-assigned school grades. as one possible explanation for this finding, the minority status of girls in gifted classes is discussed.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
You have 4 item(s) in your cart.
Last item you added is
The Collaboration of Mathematically Gifted Students on Challenging Tasks.

View Cart