Ability Grouping for the Gifted Learner

Ability Grouping for the Gifted Learner

by Lisa Macari

The practice of grouping students by ability is a controversial topic in many schools and school districts. The latest trend is a move away from ability grouping and towards heterogeneous grouping. How are gifted students affected by this trend? The research seems divided. Sometimes the same research is used to both support and oppose the issue. I believe the issue of ability grouping must be looked at as 2 separate issues. The first issue is ability grouping or tracking lower ability students and the second is ability grouping for gifted learners. For the purposes of this article, we will consider the issue of ability grouping for the gifted . As I think there is much agreement as to the benefits of grouping heterogeneously for the lower or even average ability grouping, we will not discuss that here.

What is ability grouping? Ability grouping is a broad term which means grouping students based on their ability. The idea behind ability grouping is to group students based on similarities of needs for intellectual challenge. All students in a group are at or around the same level of readiness. The grouping may occur in various ways, such as, within class grouping, self contained classrooms and cluster grouping.

Whether or not students should be grouped by ability is an important issue to teachers because teachers often encounter difficulties when they try to address the needs of their gifted students. Students learn at different rates and have differing abilities. Teachers must know and understand this. (VanTassel-Baska, J , 2005). If gifted students are not challenged and motivated, they will become lethargic and lose their love of learning. Gifted learners in a regular classroom with no differentiated instruction actually had a decline in their level of achievement and academic growth and a loss of interest in learning. “Educators are finding that some of these gifted children are regressing in skills” (Caraisco,256). This is a concern for parents, the student, the school and society.

Shouldn’t we be nurturing and developing the gifts and talents of our most able learners? Wouldn’t that be best for our society? I feel we have a responsibility to nurture and provide the most optimal environment for these children to develop, learn and grow. The answer should not be to place them in the role as teacher and tutor to other children . While this is fine and beneficial to all, some of the time, it should not be the only means of challenging a gifted learner. These students have a right to learn and be challenged at their own level, just as all children do. By allowing gifted children to work with each other, they will develop and grow and learn at a faster pace and a deeper level.

Why are there so many opponents to ability grouping? A major criticism of ability grouping has been the under representation of minorities and economically disadvantaged in the high ability groups or gifted programs. Conversely, there has been a disproportionately high level of these students in the low track classes. While this issue is certainly one that needs to be addressed, it should not be resolved by eliminating appropriate ability grouping options to our identified gifted learners. We should find better ways to identify the gifted children in these groups rather than rid the system of such grouping.

Another argument against ability grouping centers around research showing the benefits heterogeneous grouping has on the lower ability and perhaps even the average ability learners. Should we sacrifice the best options for gifted students so that we may better educate the lower achievers? Most of the arguments against ability grouping argue this view from the standpoint of the lower ability students. Looking at the research on gifted students, the evidence seems to support such grouping. (Rogers, 1993; Kulik & Kulik, 1990).

Bruner states that school is supposed to provide a setting in which performance has fewer esteem threatening consequences than in the real world, presumably in the interest of encouraging the learner to try things out. He say’s that ability grouping disables the learner by drawing a box around them instead of enabling the learner to learn through experiences gained through interaction in heterogeneous settings. ( Bruner,1996).

Bruner argues effectively against homogenous grouping based on ability for a limited population. He believes that there are great benefits of heterogeneous grouping for lower ability students. Their opportunities for learning are increased when they are in an environment with higher ability students. (Bruner,1996). While there is much evidence to support this, it does not address the needs of the high ability learners. The gifted learners should also be given an opportunity to benefit from an environment of higher level learning. It may be true that heterogeneous grouping may benefit lower ability students, and there may be some benefits for the gifted in sometimes being grouped heteregeneously. However, gifted learners benefit tremendously from being grouped with other gifted learners for precisely the reasons stated by Bruner. The gifted learners learn differently and at a quicker pace than do their age peers. They also have different interests, more mature senses of humor and sometimes special emotional and social development needs. These needs are better met when a child feels supported and accepted. This is most likely to occur in a homogenous group setting.

Bruner states that the classroom is a community that should model ways of knowing and doing and allow for opportunities to learn from each other. He believed that people learn from each other by interacting with one another, not just by showing and telling (Bruner, 1996). Gifted learners learn from each other. They delve into subjects of interest on deeper levels than their age peers and if grouped with other gifted learners, have the opportunity to share and exchange ideas and interests. Constructivist theory supports complex and challenging learning environments. Bruner’s theories are consistent with the constructivist’s theory. Wouldn’t this position then support the gifted child’s right to learn in the most challenging environment?

Too often, gifted students sit in a classroom unchallenged and bored. They lose interest in learning which is sad because they usually enter school with a love of learning that is exciting to observe. The arguments against ability grouping state that lower ability students benefit from working with higher ability learners. They learn from their peers. This is true, however, should we sacrifice our gifted learners right to be challenged. Don’t they have a right to learn and be motivated by others in their class? There are many arguments stating the benefit of such heterogeneous grouping for the lower ability students but they fail to state what benefit’s the gifted students gain. It seems that the opponents of ability grouping are concerned only with the lower level students and are willing to sacrifice the higher level students. It is important for gifted students to interact with others of similar abilities. We, as educators and as part of a society, should promote these kind of exchanges and educational opportunities. Who knows where they may take us?

“School is supposed to provide a setting in which performance has fewer esteem- threatening consequences than in the real world, presumably in the interest of encouraging the learner to try things out” (Bruner, 1996). Although this statement was made by Bruner to argue against ability grouping for lower ability students, an argument can be made that this is precisely why ability grouping is important for the gifted learner. Research has shown a significant academic gain as well as an increase in attitude when students were grouped with other gifted students (Kulik & Kulik, 1990). “Gifted students tend to benefit most from like ability grouping, because the strategy provides them with the opportunity to access more advanced knowledge and skills and to practice deeper processing.” (Rogers. K.,1998). As to those that feel it is inequitable or unfair to group high ability students, lets end on this thought: Would you put a first year violinist in the same group as one who has had several years of lessons? The answer would, of course, be no. It is precisely in the interest of fairness that all children should be met at their level and progress from there. Schools should help every student realize her potential, whatever that may be.

References

Bruner, J., (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Caraisco, J. (2007, July/August), Overcoming Lethargy in Gifted and Talented Education with Contract Activity Packages: I’m Choosing to Learn! . The Clearing House, (6), 255-259. (Research Library Database No. 1328654191) Retrieved February 27, 2009.

Kulik, J.A. & Kulik, C.C. (1990), Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Rogers, K. (September, 1993), Grouping the gifted and talented : Questions and answers. Roeper Review, 16(1). Retrieved from
www.geniusdenied.com on February 25, 2009.