GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

Gifted Students’ Perceptions

of the Academic and Social/Emotional Effects
of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Grouping
Jan Adams-Byers, Sara Squiller Whitsell, and Sidney M. Moon
Gifted Education Resource Institute, Purdue University

ABSTRACT PUTTING THE RESEARCH

TO USE
This study investigated student perceptions of differ-
ences in academic and social effects that occur when This study suggests that gifted and talented students
gifted and talented youth are grouped homogeneously differ in their desire to participate in mixed-ability
(i.e., in special classes for gifted students) as contrasted groups. Most study participants preferred to be
with heterogeneously (i.e., in classes with many abil- grouped with other identified gifted students for edu-
ity levels represented). Forty-four students in grades cational purposes, but a portion of the participants
5–11 completed interviews or questionnaires while preferred to maintain contact with their nongifted
attending a summer residential program for gifted and friends during the school day. This suggests that a
talented students. Questions were designed to clarify school’s gifted and talented program should include a
the nature of academic and social outcomes under the broad array of services to provide both homogeneous
two grouping conditions. On the whole, the partici- and heterogeneous grouping options for gifted and
pants perceived homogenous grouping more posi- talented students.
tively with respect to academic outcomes. They This study also suggests the need for further
learned more in the more challenging environment research to determine if there is a way to anticipate
provided by homogeneous classes. However, they had which students will perform best in homogeneous
mixed feelings about which setting better met their instructional settings and which will be better served
social needs. Participants seemed to value having both by heterogeneous programs. (a) Does the degree of
similar peers in homogenous classes and the social intellectual advancement make a difference? Are stu-
diversity of heterogeneous classes. A troubling finding dents who possess an ability level far from the mean
that emerged was the preference of a few of the stu- more inclined to prefer homogeneous grouping than
dents for heterogeneous classes because they were eas- gifted students whose ability levels are closer to that of
ier and enabled them to attain a high class ranking the average student? (b) Does the area of ability make
with little work. Implications of the findings for edu- a difference? Are children who are predominantly
cators and counselors of gifted students are discussed. gifted in the realm of creativity or performing arts
more inclined to desire the companionship of friends
in those fields, regardless of their intellectual levels,
Controversy over the relative merits of grouping and are students who excel in intellectual and aca-
gifted and talented students homogeneously (all high abil- demic giftedness more inclined to prefer others of like
ity) versus heterogeneously (mixed abilities) for learning is ability in the educational setting? (c) Does this prefer-
long-standing (Benbow & Stanley, 1996; Feldhusen & ence have more to do with personality types than with
Moon, 1992; Kulik & Kulik, 1997; Oakes, 1992; Rogers, levels of giftedness? Answers to these questions would
1991; Slavin, 1990). Supporters of mixed-ability grouping be helpful for gifted educators as they design sys-
believe it provides gifted students with social development temwide gifted programs and individualized educa-
benefits for gifted students while providing less able stu- tional plans appropriate for each of the gifted students
dents with increasing motivation, self-esteem, leadership in their school systems.

VOL 48 N O 1 • W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 • G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY 7
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on March 14, 2015
GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

opportunities, and academic benefits (Oakes, 1985; These negative encounters often lead highly able students
Slavin, 1987). Those with an egalitarian philosophy of to experience isolation and feelings of frustration or
education often oppose homogenous grouping of high- depression or to attempt to fit in by hiding their excep-
ability students on the following grounds: (a) gifted classes tional abilities (Clasen & Clasen, 1995; Gross, 1989, 1993;
are elitist, and (b) gifted students can make it on their own Silverman). Gifted individuals possess many characteristics
without needing special interventions (Moon & Rosselli, of resilience (Bland, Sowa, & Callahan, 1994), but it may
2000). Finally, egalitarians often believe that other stu- not make sense to place these students in learning envi-
dents will suffer academically when deprived of the men- ronments that tax that resiliency daily, particularly when
tal stimulation of association with high-ability classmates researchers cite the many positive effects of grouping
(Oakes, 1985; Slavin, 1987). gifted students with their intellectual peers (Kulik &
On the other hand, many educators of gifted and tal- Kulik, 1997; Rogers, 1991).
ented students support homogeneous grouping because In a climate of contradictory assertions about group-
they believe that it provides high-ability students with aca- ing, how can educators plan academic programs in which
demic and social/emotional benefits (Feldhusen & Moon, they feel confident that highly able students will be com-
1992; Kulik & Kulik, 1997; Lawton, 1992; Moon & fortable and appropriately challenged? Though the litera-
Rosselli, 2000; Rogers, 1991; Sayler & Brookshire, 1993). ture on academic programming is replete with scholarly
They also challenge the idea that less advanced students are theories, opinions, and recommendations, it is sparse in
negatively affected by the absence of highly able classmate student voices. What types of academic programming do
models, citing research that indicates individuals model gifted and talented students prefer? Where do they experi-
themselves after people they perceive to be of similar abil- ence the greatest degree of academic challenge and social
ity, not those they believe to possess more advanced abili- comfort? The purpose of this study is to examine a group
ties (Schunk, 1987). In fact, rather than suffering in the of gifted and talented students’ personal perceptions of the
absence of the most highly able students, many classroom academic and social advantages and disadvantages of both
teachers can cite examples of less highly advanced peers heterogeneous and homogeneous grouping.
“rising to the top” of a mixed-ability classroom, filling
leadership roles socially and academically, when their
highly able classmates are absent. Method
Educators supporting homogeneous grouping of
high-ability students also challenge the claim that highly Participants
able students require mixed-ability grouping to become
“socialized” (Robinson, 1990; Robinson & Noble, 1991; Participants consisted of 44 students enrolled in sum-
Silverman, 1993). They claim that the behaviors that mer residential programs for gifted and talented youth at a
teachers consider to be socially immature are often a result large Midwestern university. The students, representing
of the frustration highly able students experience when grades 5–11, participated in one of three different pro-
forced to function in a classroom environment that is not grams: Program I (for students who had completed grades
compatible with their high abilities, specialized interests, 4–6), Program II (for students in grades 6–8 [sixth graders
and advanced developmental levels. When these students had the option of attending either Program I or Program
are transferred to high-ability classrooms that offer aca- II, depending on whether or not they met the SAT or
demic challenge and interaction with highly able peers, ACT requirements for Program II]), or Program III (for
these scholars note that such “immature” behaviors students in grades 9–12; see Table 1). To qualify for the
quickly disappear (Silverman). Researchers have found programs, students were required to supply a letter of rec-
that experiences in mixed-ability classrooms can have a ommendation from a teacher or school official and an offi-
negative social and emotional impact on highly able stu- cial transcript of grades demonstrating an A-/B+
dents. These experiences include teasing and bullying by grade-point average. In addition, Program I applicants had
peers (Moon, Nelson, & Piercy, 1993); lack of academic to score above the 90th percentile on an achievement test
challenge, which leads to boredom and demotivation or above 124 on a measure of IQ. Program II applicants
(Baker, Bridger, & Evans, 1998); being misunderstood or were required to have an SAT-Verbal score of at least 430
unappreciated by peers and teachers (Clinkenbeard, 1991; or an SAT-Math score of at least 500, or equivalent ACT
Feldhusen, 1989; Kulik & Kulik, 1987); and outright scores. Program III applicants were required to have SAT
rejection and social ostracism by peers (Gross, 1989). scores of at least 500 in the area of their desired course-

8 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8 NO 1
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on March 14, 2015
 GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

work, with some courses requiring even higher scores. Table 1

Twenty-nine of the participants in this study were attend-
ing the summer residential programs for the first time; 15 Distribution of Students by Grade Level and Gender
had attended one or more programs previously (1 year, n =
7; 2 years, n = 4; 3 years, n = 1; and 4 years, n = 3). Male Female Total
The students in this sample cannot be assumed to rep-
resent the general gifted population. Their very presence Grade n % n % n %
in a summer residential program separates them from
gifted students who do not attend such programs, because 5 1 2.3 6 13.6 7 15.9
of differences in motivation, interest, financial resources, 6 0 0.0 3 6.8 3 6.8
familial support, or priorities for summer activities. 7 0 0.0 3 6.8 3 6.8
However, the researchers viewed this sample as particu- 8 7 15.9 4 9.1 11 25.0
larly desirable in that the participants’ past educational 9 5 11.4 4 9.1 9 20.5
experiences represented a variety of gifted programming 10 2 4.5 6 13.6 8 18.2
options, rather than a single, common gifted education 11 1 2.3 1 2.3 2 4.5
background as might be found in a sample taken from a
single school system. Seven participants (16%) were Total 16 36.4 27 61.3 43* 97.7
enrolled in full-time schools for the gifted during the reg- Note. *One Program I student declined to provide gender information on the ques-
ular school term. Two students (4%) were homeschooled tionnaire.
by their parents. Three students (7%) had received no
gifted and talented programming in their home commu- team trained to conduct interviews had to withdraw from
nity public schools. The remaining 32 students (73%) had immediate participation in the study due to illness,
participated in some form of gifted and talented program- absence, or injury. Only two trained members remained
ming during their school years, ranging from brief enrich- available to complete the data collection during the short
ment pull-out experiences to one or more years in time the students were on campus. The resulting lack of a
self-contained gifted classrooms. Thus, student partici- sufficient number of trained interviewers precluded a con-
pants’ perceptions of heterogeneous and homogeneous tinuation of this one-on-one data-collection method with
grouping covered a broad spectrum of classroom environ- subsequent groups. The research team carefully examined
ments, teaching styles, programming options, and geo- the responses given by students in the personal interviews
graphical and cultural idiosyncrasies. and determined sufficient and comparable data could be
gathered in group settings by using open-ended written
Data Collection questionnaires that contained the same questions asked of
students during individual interviews. The questionnaire
All participants and their parents signed consent forms format was used for the data collection sessions with the
the day the students arrived on campus after receiving a remaining 25 students. In a preliminary analysis, responses
personal explanation of the study by one of the researchers. from the two data-collection methods were compared.
First-time students attending a 1-week session were inter- Research team members could discern no difference in
viewed or administered a questionnaire near the end of the the depth and breadth of student responses given in the
week to allow for maximum exposure to the program two methods. Thus, the team decided that the responses
experiences. First-time students enrolled in a 2-week pro- from the two data-collection methods could be combined
gram were interviewed or administered a questionnaire for analysis.
during their second week. Participants who had attended
previous sessions were interviewed or administered a Instruments
questionnaire at a time of their choice.
Data were collected in two ways. Nineteen students The researchers developed the interview/questionnaire
attending the first 1-week session volunteered to be inter- protocol for this study. Items selected for discussion here
viewed individually by five members of the eight-member cover five areas: (a) the students’ academic and social activ-
research team. Interviewers used a predesigned, open- ities in their home community schools (e.g., “Did you take
ended protocol format. Before the next session of inter- honors, AP, or accelerated classes in your home school?,”
views could be scheduled, several members of the research “What activities and recreation do you share with your

VOL 48 N O 1 • W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 • G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY 9
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on March 14, 2015
GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

friends back home?,” etc.); (b) the students’ academic and Results
social activities in the summer residential programs (e.g.,
“Which courses are you taking this year in the Purdue Respondents expressed a diversity of opinions about
Summer Program?,” “What are your social relationships the academic and social/emotional advantages and disad-
like at Purdue?,” etc.); (c) a comparison and contrast of the vantages of heterogeneous and homogeneous grouping,
their activities at home and their activities in the summer with many students supplying multiple responses to indi-
residential programs (e.g., “Contrast your Purdue classes vidual items. Perceived academic advantages were more
this summer with the classes you took last year at your home than 3 to 1 in favor of homogeneous (high-ability) group-
school in terms of level of challenge, amount of learning, ing as opposed to heterogeneous (mixed-ability) grouping.
your motivation for learning, and how you feel about your- Of the 73 academic advantages listed by these students, 57
self”); (d) student perceptions of advantages and disadvan- responses (78%) were advantages for high-ability homo-
tages of participating in groups of mixed-ability students geneous grouping, while 16 (22%) were advantages for
(“What are the advantages of being in classes with mixed mixed-ability grouping. Students mentioned a similar
ability levels?,” “What are the disadvantages of being in number of overall categories of social/emotional advan-
classes with mixed ability levels?,” etc.); and (e) student per- tages within the two grouping strategies (seven for homo-
ceptions of advantages and disadvantages of being grouped geneous and six for heterogeneous), but heterogeneous
homogeneously with other high-ability students (e.g., grouping categories received more numerous responses by
“What are the advantages of being in classes with other students. Of the 40 total responses, 62.5% were
high-ability kids?,” “What are the disadvantages of being in social/emotional advantages of heterogeneous grouping
classes with other high-ability kids?,” etc.). and 37.5% were social/emotional advantages of homoge-
neous grouping (25 responses compared to 15 responses).
Data Analysis When the question was reversed to gain information about
social disadvantages students perceived to be associated
Data were analyzed using qualitative cross-case, con- with grouping, students again preferred mixed-ability
stant comparative procedures (Patton, 1990). All responses grouping, listing 24 homogeneous social/emotional disad-
to a single item were analyzed until patterns began to vantages to 14 heterogeneous social/emotional disadvan-
emerge within that set of responses. This process was tages (63% to 38% of responses).
repeated with all items. These grouped responses were Overall, 33 students (75% of the participants)
then compared and contrasted to identify further patterns. reported a mixture of advantages and disadvantages in
Following that, individual cases were examined to discover both grouping styles, 1 student (0.02%) perceived no
patterns among students responding similarly. social/emotional disadvantages of heterogeneous group-
Though the questions asked of participants were con- ing, and 10 students (23%) perceived no social/emotional
ceptualized by the researchers as academic or social, disadvantages of high-ability homogeneous grouping. In
responses suggest that students perceived a broader concep- brief, participants of this study, as a group, perceived
tualization, that of academic and social/emotional. In some mixed-ability grouping to offer the greatest number of
cases, questions pertaining to academics drew student social/emotional advantages and high-ability grouping to
responses of a social/emotional nature. To reflect student offer the greatest number of academic advantages.
perceptions more accurately, the results will be reported in
terms of these two emergent categories: academic and Homogeneous Grouping
social/emotional. Results categorized as academic reflect
student responses to questions designed by the researchers Compared to mixed-ability grouping, participants
to elicit academic advantages and disadvantages. The perceived high-ability homogeneous grouping as offering
social/emotional results reflect student responses to ques- greater academic advantages (57 to 16, a ratio of more than
tions designed by the researchers to elicit social advantages 3 to 1), but fewer social/emotional advantages (15 to 25, a
and disadvantages. Emotional effects discussed by students ratio of slightly less than 1 to 2). Only 2 students
in response to the academic questions are included in the responded that high-ability homogeneous grouping had
academic results, rather than the social/emotional results, to “no advantages.” Each of the remaining 42 participants
reflect student conceptualizations. For example, because stu- found advantages (academic [n = 27], social/emotional [n =
dents conceptualized boredom as an academic issue, that is 5], or both [n = 10]) in high-ability grouping. In addition,
where it is tabled and discussed. 10 students (22.7%) said there were no disadvantages in

10 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8 NO 1
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on March 14, 2015
 GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

Table 2
Student Perceptions of Academic Effects of Homogeneous Grouping

Academic Advantages # of Responsesa Academic Disadvantages # of Responsesa

Challenge 11 No Disadvantages (10)b

Fast Pace 11 More intelligent peers 5
Discussion 9 Fast pace 3
Teacher behavior/competence 4 High expectations 3
Motivation 4 Hard work/ heavy workload 2
No repetition 3 Opinionated or overbearing peers 1
Positive competition 3 Stress due to academic competition 1
Fun 3 Not accelerated enough for highest
Greater quantity of material learned 2 ability students 1
Receiving help 2
Learn from peers 1
Peers of similar ability 1
Interesting 1
Hands-on 1
Independence 1

Total Academic Advantages 57 Total Academic Disadvantages 15

Note.
a Many students provided multiple responses to each question
b Student responses of "none" were not included in the total column count of advantages or disadvantages

high-ability grouping. Of the remaining 34 students who on one subject too long” (Case #063). A female student in
listed disadvantages, 54% of the social/emotional disad- eighth grade ref lected, “You’re not held back. Teachers
vantages and 40% of the academic disadvantages related to have quality time for all and not just those with a problem”
increased competition and lowered self-esteem due to a (Case #024). The absence of tutoring demands was men-
more intellectually competitive environment in which tioned by one student as an advantage of high-ability
they were no longer automatically the “top” student. For homogeneous grouping: “You don’t have to help other
example, a fifth grader said, “Some of the disadvantages kids” (Case #007). Four other students echoed that senti-
are having a harder time getting to the top. You don’t feel ment when responding to the reverse question by noting
as well [sic] about yourself because there are more kids at it was an academic disadvantage to them in heterogeneous
your level” (Case #230). A middle school male responded, grouping to be frequently interrupted in their work by less
“You’re no longer the smartest kid in your class” (Case advanced students needing help. These five students were
#039). not unwilling to help, but experienced frustration and
impatience when expected to “teach” during their “learn-
Academic Effects ing” time.
Disadvantages. When asked to list disadvantages of
Advantages. Almost one-half (47.3%) of the academic being grouped with other gifted students, almost one-
advantages students listed for high-ability homogeneous quarter of the students (n = 10, 22.7%) responded that
grouping referred to fast pace, high challenge level, and they felt there were no academic disadvantages (see Table
lack of repetition in content (see Table 2). “You’re sur- 2). Among students noting disadvantages, the most fre-
rounded by people who have a similar ability level. Classes quently cited ones referred to the presence of peers who
move very quickly and are more challenging than regular are more intelligent, the stress of academic competition
classes,” observed an 11th-grade male student (Case with them, and the predilection many of them have
#048). A 10th-grade female student stated, “You can work toward being opinionated and overbearing in academic
at a higher pace and go quicker. You don’t have to dwell discussions. The remaining disadvantages listed referred to

VOL 48 N O 1 • W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 • G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY 11
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on March 14, 2015
GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

Table 3
Student Perceptions of Social/Emotional Effects of Homogeneous Grouping

Social/Emotional Advantages # of Responsesa Social/Emotional Disadvantages # of Responsesa

Understanding/ peers think alike 5 No Disadvantages (10)b

No teasing/abuse 3 Lower self-esteem and class rank 12
Teacher attitude and attention 2 Peer attitude 2
Unity 1 Peer intimidation 2
Commonalties 1 Teasing/abuse 1
Conversation 1 Competition 1
Helping slower students not required 1 High expectations 1
Equality issue 1 Too little diversity 1
No opportunity to help others less able 1
Separation from nongifted friends 1
Adjustments 1
Equality issue 1
Total Social/Emotional Advantages 15 Total Social/Emotional Disadvantages 24
Note.
a Many students provided multiple responses to each question
b Student responses of "none" were not included in the total column count of advantages or disadvantages.

the challenge of hard or heavy workloads, fast pace, and dated by the equally talented students in their high-ability
high expectation. There was one exception: One student groups. “Lots of times an answer will turn into a debate
noted the reverse, that is, that gifted programs were not about whether it’s wrong or not. You get corrected all the
accelerated enough for the most highly gifted students. time, even if you’re right, by kids who think you’re
wrong” (Case #033). A ninth-grade student in a school for
Social/Emotional Effects the gifted appreciated his homogeneous classrooms
because they gave a “healthy sense of competition,” but
Advantages. Participants noted that the predominate felt high-ability grouping could be a disadvantage in class-
social/emotional advantages of being in a high-ability rooms where “competition could get too tense” (Case
group were classes with peers who understand them and #002). A 10th-grade student echoed these sentiments
think like they do, where they are not teased for their when she stated, “I think there is slightly more competi-
achievement or questions, and where the teacher has time tion [in homogeneous classrooms]. I feel more pressure to
for them (see Table 3). “It’s easier to talk—you’re around do as well as everyone else. I panic if I start to get behind,
kids who understand you” (Case #033). “You aren’t made but I also push myself to do my very best” (Case #059).
fun of or teased about being smart” (Case #029). “You Some students commented on the frustration of growing
have more fun. You don’t have to ask all the fun questions up in a self-contained gifted program if the class size was small
yourself” (Case #012). “The teacher doesn’t have to slow and students were grouped with the same handful of peers
down for slower learners. My teacher trusts us more so we throughout their school career. One eighth-grade female
can do more and funner [sic] projects” (Case #043). “The enrolled in accelerated math and language arts classes missed
nongifted kids don’t get more attention” (Case #036). the diversity of a mixed-ability classroom: “You’re only with
Disadvantages. Social/emotional disadvantages of high- one type of class” (Case #007). Some of the students thought
ability homogeneous grouping centered predominantly the greater diversity of a mixed-ability group was an advantage
on class ranking (see Table 3). Gifted students regretted in preparing them to function in a mixed-ability world. Other
losing their top ranking among less advanced peers when students in self-contained gifted classrooms missed their
removed from mixed-ability classes. “[I’m] not always the nongifted friends. For example, one middle school student in
best” (Case #024). “Everybody is as smart—[I] can’t have a fulltime gifted classroom lamented, “At school, you don’t get
the last word” (Case #017). They sometimes felt intimi- to be with your friends who aren’t in accelerated classes”

12 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8 NO 1
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on March 14, 2015
 GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

Table 4
Student Perceptions of Academic Effects of Heterogeneous Grouping

Academic Advantages # of Responsesa Academic Disadvantages # of Responsesa

No Advantages (6)b No Disadvantages (1)b

Easier/Relaxed 9 Slow pace 12
Review 3 Less challenge/easy/low level 10
Free time 1 Boredom 7
Diversity of ideas 1 Repetition 4
Mentorship activities 1 Tutoring interruptions 4
Receive help 1 Learn less/ less quantity 2
Low motivation 2
Lazy 1
Extreme ability levels ignored 1
Teacher incompetence 1

Total Academic Advantages 16 Total Disadvantages 44

Note.
a Many students provided multiple responses to each question
b Student responses of "none" were not included in the total column count of advantages or disadvantages.

(Case #029). However, one quarter of the students in this the less challenging curriculum and slower pace of mixed-
study felt there were no social/emotional or academic disad- ability groups tended to lessen their motivation to put
vantages in high-ability homogeneous grouping. forth their best effort. “I don’t try hard” (Case #032). “I
understood things, so I didn’t study further. I didn’t have
Heterogeneous Grouping to try to figure out what that was” (Case #028). “The
extra motivation to keep up isn’t there since most of the
Six participants (14%) felt there were no advantages classes aren’t as challenging to me” (Case #060).
academically or socially/emotionally for gifted students in Disadvantages. Participants perceived the academic dis-
mixed-ability groups. The remaining 38 students (86%) advantages of mixed-ability grouping to outnumber the
identified 16 academic advantages of mixed-ability group- advantages almost 3 to 1 (45 responses compared to 16
ing, 45 academic disadvantages, 26 social/emotional responses; see Table 4). Most (75%) of the disadvantages
advantages, and 14 social/emotional disadvantages. of mixed-ability grouping mentioned by students con-
cerned the low challenge level, slow pace, repetition of
Academic Effects content, and resulting boredom. A seventh-grade female
student addressing the problem of repetition said, “You
Advantages. The predominant academic advantages of might review more than you learn” (Case #043). “You get
mixed-ability grouping perceived by participants were bored during the easy stuff,” complained a middle school
related to the more relaxed atmosphere of a classroom in male (Case #039). “It’s usually too slow,” lamented a sixth-
which the work is easy and requires little effort to master, grade female (Case #010). A 10th-grade female student
material is reviewed repeatedly so there is little stress over explained, “I understand things quickly and some other
failure, things move at a slow pace, and bright students kids don’t, which means you stick with one thing for a
have plenty of free time on their hands (see Table 4). “It’s long time, which is boring” (Case #063).
easier to stay on top, and, every once in a while, it’s nice
to be able to relax in class” (Case #043). “You get more of Social/Emotional Effects
a solid grasp—you stay on the subject longer” (Case
#009). “Well, the classes are slower paced, which takes Advantages. The students’ list of perceived
some stress off” (Case #063). But, students also noted that social/emotional advantages of mixed-ability grouping

VOL 48 N O 1 • W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 • G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY 13
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on March 14, 2015
GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

Table 5
Student Perceptions of Social/Emotional Effects of Heterogeneous Grouping

Social/Emotional Advantages # of Responsesa Social/Emotional Disadvantages # of Responsesa

No Advantages (6)b No Disadvantages (1)b

Opportunity to help others 8 Teacher attitude (intolerant, unappreciative) 2
More kids/friends/greater diversity 5 Teasing/abuse 4
Opportunity to adjust to others 5 Frustration / Impatience 2
Higher self-esteem / top ranking 4 Disruptive peers 2
Fun, entertaining 2 Too much diversity 1
Equality Issues 1 Misunderstood 1
Loneliness 1
Class ranking 1

Total Social/Emotional Advantages 25 Total Social/Emotional Disadvantages 14

Note.
a Many students provided multiple responses to each question
b Student responses of "none" were not included in the total column count of advantages or disadvantages.

focused predominantly on two areas: relationships (69% myself because I’m not the worst” (Case #021). Eight stu-
of responses) and class ranking (15% of responses; see dents responded that a heterogeneous grouping advantage
Table 5). In the area of relationships, some students val- was the opportunity to help other students. “You always
ued the opportunity to help less advanced students, some have someone lower than you that you can help” (Case
appreciated the opportunity to interact with a larger and #022). “You can always help someone who doesn’t com-
more diverse group of students, and others perceived an prehend and you feel better inside,” reported another stu-
advantage in the opportunity to interact with less dent (Case #019).
advanced friends from whom they are separated when in Disadvantages. Despite the opportunities mentioned
gifted classrooms. above for positive interaction with nongifted peers,
Fourteen of the respondents (32%) mentioned that some students reported that mixed-ability grouping
their group of friends at home included nongifted stu- often created a negative environment in which they (a)
dents, most of whom they knew from their neighbor- were not appreciated by their teachers or peers (“Those
hoods, sports activities, cheerleading, or musical groups. who do nothing, then excel for a short time, get all the
These friendships had evolved primarily in nonintellectual recognition. Some teachers take high talent for
settings, and participants sometimes noted that the rela- granted,” Case #017); (b) were subject to ridicule or
tionships were based on these shared interests, but did not teasing (“You can be made fun of for trying hard [by]
include sharing academic interests. Participants generally people with less high knowledge because they don’t
mentioned sharing academic interests with friends of sim- think they are doing so well,” Case #026); and (c) felt
ilar intellectual ability. A 10th-grade female in accelerated misunderstood (“I got in trouble because my hand was
courses explained this phenomenon well: up every 2 seconds. [The teacher] didn’t appreciate pre-
cocious questions,” Case #012). An eighth grader
I go to the co-rec with friends, participate in band with friends,
play soccer with friends and participate on academic teams. I have described a heterogeneous classroom as “frustrating”
friends that are very different from each other. They are different and a place where she was “easily misunderstood” (Case
because I met them in my different activities and they have differ-
ent interests. They are totally different. I have friends who work
#023).
hard at school and others who struggle. I have athletic friends and
friends who rarely exercise. There is such a difference in all my Issues and Contradictions
friends that it’s hard to describe. (Case #037)

Regarding class ranking, some participants valued Participants raised several controversial issues as they
being the top student in the class: “I feel better about responded to open-ended items. One of the issues on

14 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8 NO 1
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on March 14, 2015
 GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

which they differed was whether being asked to help less Discussion
advanced students is an advantage or a disadvantage of a
mixed-ability class. Nine responses suggested that a por- Time With Nongifted Peers
tion of the students enjoyed the role of tutor; five
responses indicated others resented being asked to tutor Not surprisingly, the students in this study strongly
other students or being interrupted frequently by peers favored high-ability homogeneous grouping over mixed-
wanting help. The remaining 31 respondents did not ability grouping for academic reasons. However, their
mention peer tutoring. contrasting preference for heterogeneous grouping over
Students also differed in their opinions about whether high-ability homogeneous grouping for social/emotional
possessing higher class ranking in a less challenging het- reasons runs counter to many popular theories in the field
erogeneous class was more desirable than having lower of gifted education (e.g., Moon, Swift, & Shallenberger,
class ranking in a more challenging high-ability class. 2002). Do these student responses suggest that we have
Participants tended to want the best of both worlds: the been mistaken in advocating for homogeneous grouping
academic challenge and stimulation of homogeneous for social/emotional, as well as academic, reasons? The
interaction and the top rank among their classmates that answer appears to be, “That depends.”
they enjoyed in heterogeneous classes. For most of the
respondents, it was an either/or dilemma. If they partici- Performance vs. Mastery Orientation
pated in homogeneous classes, they frequently encoun-
tered students as bright as, or brighter than, they. Their It would seem that, for several of these bright stu-
spot at the top was no longer guaranteed without effort. dents, a portion of their self-identity derives from being
However, if they remained in heterogeneous classrooms the smartest among their peers. This attitude, which
where they easily outperformed their classmates, they sometimes develops when highly able students spend large
generally found themselves bored at the slow pace and portions of instructional time with less able students,
repetitive materials. points to a disturbing conclusion. For some gifted and tal-
One final set of responses seemed at odds with the ented students, motivation toward mastery has been
general pattern. Most students appeared at ease contem- replaced with motivation toward performance, with the
plating advantages and disadvantages of grouping strate- measure of success being based on relative superiority to
gies; however, one fifth-grade female attending a school others, rather than improving in relation to one’s own best
for the gifted seemed to balk at the underlying premise performance (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996).
that gifted students differed from other students in a way For example, a quick comparison of participants’ lists
that would cause some instructional strategies to be more of social/emotional disadvantages shows that participants
or less advantageous to them. Her responses tended to overwhelmingly stated that there are more social/emo-
deny the very existence of student differences (coded as tional disadvantages in the gifted classroom setting than in
“Equality Issue”). When asked to list advantages of high- the mixed-ability classroom setting (24 to 14); however, a
ability classes, she responded, “I would call all the people closer look reveals that half of the homogeneous
in my class normal kids—they don’t carry pencils in their social/emotional disadvantages (12 of 24) relate to this one
pockets or never touch sports. So, I think it is perfectly a response: lower self-esteem/class rank. When that
normal feeling and [there] are no advantages [to homo- response is removed, social/emotional disadvantages of the
geneous grouping] other than feeling normal” (Case two methods are approximately the same, with homoge-
#038). When this same student was then asked to list dis- neous grouping having slightly fewer disadvantages (12 to
advantages of high-ability grouping, her response was, 14). This is a point of importance because raw numbers
“As I said, there aren’t many advantages or disadvan- alone do not reveal that the main disadvantage of homo-
tages—we’re normal kids. I’m just as ‘gifted via [sic] geneous grouping noted by students is not, from the per-
smart via [sic] talented’ as any of my friends who don’t go spective of most educators, a disadvantage at all. Highly
to a gifted school” (Case #038). A second female, a 10th- able students who experience a drop in self-esteem when
grade honors student, seemed uncomfortable with the competing with equally talented classmates have “built
idea of differences and felt advantages were found in their houses upon sand” in the sense that they have come
mixed-ability grouping because “social and academic to define themselves as worthwhile in relation to less able
levels are relaxed and everyone is considered equal” peers, which also often means that they have expended lit-
(Case #055). tle effort to excel. Educators would prefer that these highly

VOL 48 N O 1 • W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 • G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY 15
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on March 14, 2015
GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

able students build their sense of self-worth on effort and & Clasen, 1995; Cross, Coleman, & Terhaar-Yonkers,
personal improvement. Educational psychologists would 1991; Kerr, 1985; Silverman, 1993). Were these students
disagree with gifted students’ assertions that being the top voicing their exasperation at being stereotyped (e.g., as a
student among a classroom of less able peers is a desirable nerd or weirdo, or as stuck-up, etc.) and defined solely by
advantage, especially when that ranking is due to ability, their giftedness (Steinberg, 1996)? Were they trying to
rather than effort. Such a focus detracts from a mastery avoid the social stigma of giftedness (Cross, Coleman, &
orientation (e.g., Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1999). Rather, Terhaar-Yonkers)? These two students were clearly in the
such a result would be thought to be an educational disad- minority, yet their responses are troubling because they
vantage if the teacher’s goal is to develop a collection of suggest that these adolescent females were having difficul-
autonomous, self-motivated gifted learners—learners who ties with identity development that have been found to be
pursue knowledge for the sheer joy of seeking it and who associated with underachievement (Clasen & Clasen).
strive to achieve ever-increasing mastery of content and
skills. Time With Gifted Peers Only
Educators should be aware that grouping gifted stu-
dents with less able peers may encourage a performance ori- A good majority (two thirds) of the participants did
entation and thus be detrimental to gifted students’ not mention a need for time with nongifted friends as an
development. In contrast, placing highly able students issue. In fact, they tended to prefer the company of other
motivated by performance with intellectually equal peers intellectually advanced students with whom they could
presents them with the opportunity to develop a more mas- relate, supporting what researchers and educators in gifted
tery-oriented and self-referenced approach to learning. In education have consistently asserted: Gifted students want
the long term, this could prove to be a positive influence on and benefit from time with others of similar ability who
gifted students. In the short term, however, gifted students understand them, think as they do, and accept them for
with a performance orientation who are placed in a com- who they are. Though participants were quick to admit
parison group that is of equal or higher intellectual ability that homogeneous grouping can sometimes present its
may struggle with lowered self-esteem or experience own unique stresses, they most often perceived a homoge-
depression, requiring the services of a counselor to adjust neous environment as a safe haven, a place they could be
positively to their change in status and identity. themselves without fear of ridicule.
Almost one quarter of the participants claimed that
Friendships and Peer Relations homogeneous grouping had no disadvantages. These stu-
dents appear to have formed a happy match with their cur-
The issue of gifted students wishing to spend more rent programs. Even the remaining students who cited
time with their nongifted friends deserves further atten- social/emotional disadvantages of homogeneous grouping
tion. One-third of these participants expressed a desire to also identified advantages, both social/emotional and aca-
have continued contact with their nongifted friends. The demic. Thus, student responses in this study are clearly not
majority of reasons given for wishing to spend time with a mandate to eliminate homogeneous grouping, but rather
nongifted friends were positive: They valued long-estab- to broaden program designs so that students who wish to
lished bonds of friendship based on shared interests have increased contact with nongifted peers may do so.
(despite acknowledged differences in ability levels) or they
desired to experience greater peer diversity. Differing Abilities
Most of the gifted students indicated that they were Within Homogeneous Classrooms
fully aware of the ways in which they differed from
nongifted peers, yet this difference in ability did not inter- Even in a self-contained gifted classroom, one size
fere with their forming friendships. However, one dis- does not fit all; student abilities differ. “People expect us to
turbing strain did emerge in two young women’s be on the same level of ability,” remarked one 10th-grade
responses: a desire for sameness intense enough for them honors student (Case #055). Interestingly, this is the same
to deny that any differences exist between gifted and student who valued being considered equal with everyone
nongifted students. One wonders whether these responses else in a mixed-ability classroom. Most participants who
exhibit what some researchers claim is a tendency among expressed concern about the wide range of abilities that
gifted students, especially females, to deny or conceal their generally exist within a gifted group voiced anxiety that
giftedness in an effort to avoid social repercussions (Clasen they might be at the low end of the scale. Fear of being

16 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8 NO 1
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on March 14, 2015
 GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

below others is a novel sensation for many of these stu- This study suggests that educators of the gifted need to
dents. A fifth grader noted that a disadvantage of homoge- be aware that some gifted and talented students enjoy help-
neous grouping is that you have “a harder time getting to ing less able students. Teachers should provide these stu-
the top. You don’t feel as well [sic] about yourself because dents with opportunities to participate in activities like peer
there are more kids at your level” (Case #033). “The class tutoring. On the other hand, there are other gifted students
may progress a little too fast for you to understand,” stated with extensive knowledge bases and abilities who cannot
a ninth-grade male (Case #025). “If they are extremely explain concepts well, or who lack patience with those who
high-ability kids, the class could be beyond your under- do not pick up concepts quickly. “People come to you ask-
standing or too fast,” worried a 10th-grade female (Case ing for help, and some are just so stupid they need every-
#063). “They are all smarter than me,” bemoaned a 10th- thing explained 10 times in five different ways, and you
grade male (Case #062). One ninth-grade veteran of sum- don’t have the patience for it, but you feel bad if you tell
mer programs elaborated on the phenomenon: “A few them you won’t help” (Case #057). Such children do not
people who are new here are not used to dealing with oth- enjoy the role of teacher and are not effective in it. Such
ers as smart as they are. However, they usually get over it responses support the concern expressed by educators of
after a day or two” (Case #056). the gifted about the role of cooperative learning in the edu-
This bright prophecy would be a comfort if the only cation of gifted students in mixed-ability classrooms (e.g.,
problem with wide ability ranges in gifted and talented Robinson, 1990). Many cooperative learning models call
classes were bright kids having to adjust to striving for for each cooperative group to include one strong student
excellence. Unfortunately, unless gifted and talented who is responsible for seeing that everyone else in the
classes are differentiated within, so as to accommodate the group masters the content before moving on or acts as
range of ability among gifted students, the most highly supervisor of projects. This arrangement can incite hostil-
able students may still feel bored and unchallenged (Moon, ity toward gifted students placed in this role, rather than
Swift, & Shallenberger, 2002). One highly able female stu- engender cooperation and teamwork. In addition, gifted
dent enrolled in an extremely advanced school for math students can grow to resent the workload that shifts to their
and science students stated, “I still feel held back—the shoulders if their teammates are unable or are unwilling to
classes are accelerated so I can go at my own pace, but I still complete group tasks. Robinson suggested two ways in
want to go faster. It always make me wonder what a decel- which cooperative grouping can be used constructively
erated class must be like!” (Case #057). Gifted education, with gifted students: (a) they may be grouped together in
like regular education, must move beyond the “one-size- their own cooperative learning groups so they work at a
fits-all mentality.” True homogeneity is difficult to attain. more advanced or in-depth level; or (b) they may be placed
Differentiation of curricula to address individual needs is in mixed-ability groups only in their areas of weakness so they
an ongoing need for gifted students, even when grouped also have an opportunity to learn something new. Both
together in special programs. adaptations of standard cooperative grouping practices
ensure that highly able students will profit academically. If
Gifted Students as Teachers gifted students are placed in mixed-ability groups for any
other reason (such as social interaction), group tasks should
A common thread throughout participant responses not be graded and group leadership and responsibilities
was how they felt about their knowledge base and abilities should be rotated equally among the members.
in relation to their peers. In homogeneous settings, they
were sometimes intimidated by peers knowing as much, or
more, than they did; at other times, they were relieved to Limitations of the Study
be in an environment in which their peers understood
what they were saying, “talked their language,” and car- Generalizability
ried their own weight in class discussions. Conversely, in
heterogeneous classrooms, they tended to have one of two The participants in this study cannot be considered
responses: Either they enjoyed knowing more and being representative of all gifted students. Their enrollment in a
able to do more than their peers because they liked to help residential summer program for talented youth may mean
others or because it made them feel superior, or they felt their responses will differ from those of gifted students
frustrated and exploited because they were expected to who do not participate in such programs. Additional repli-
tutor less able classmates. cation with a broad array of larger samples is required

VOL 48 N O 1 • W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 • G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY 17
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on March 14, 2015
GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

before any generalizations can be made about the percep- rently know them? Many educators of the gifted would
tions of the gifted population as a whole. Although the say, “No,” based on observations of long-range academic
participants in this study represented a wide range of pro- or social/emotional effects.
gramming backgrounds, this very diversity suggests the Future studies should seek to clarify the following
need for larger replication samples to increase the number points during data collection: (a) Are participants respond-
of voices speaking from each perspective. ing from an informed, personal experience point-of-view,
or projecting themselves into an unfamiliar situation and
Volunteerism hypothesizing a response? and (b) Do participants value
each advantage and disadvantage equally?
The voluntary nature of subject participation in this
study also suggests caution when interpreting the results.
Students who volunteer to sacrifice free recreational time Implications
to participate in research may differ from students who
decline the opportunity. Though efforts were made to Need for Individualization
recruit equal numbers of students based on gender and
grade level, the voluntary nature of subject participation Despite certain limitations, useful findings emerged
also affected that aspect of the sample. For example, there from this study that have implications for the field of gifted
were more females (61.3%) than males (36.4%) and more education. They suggest it is vital that we provide highly
students in grades 8–10 (63.7%) than grades 5–7 (29.5%). able students with a balance of both academic and
social/emotional advantages based on each individual stu-
Nonstandardized Responses dent’s abilities, needs, and preferences. The predominant
message in this data is that, regardless of grouping arrange-
Interpretation of results should not be based solely on ment, each student must be considered individually and
a count of raw numbers when comparing participants’ instructional programming must be designed to be as f lex-
responses. Because of the exploratory nature of this quali- ible as possible to best serve students with vastly differing
tative study, open-ended questions and probes addressed preferences and needs (e.g., Tomlinson, 1995). The study
issues broadly. Students were not asked to indicate the adds to a growing literature indicating the importance of
degree to which their responses originated from a personal within-group differentiation in gifted programs (Delcourt
perspective as opposed to a hypothetical one. Thus, when & Evans, 1994; Moon, Swift, & Shallenberger, 2002).
a student responded that “challenge” and “fast pace” are
academic advantages of homogeneous grouping and “eas- Need for Academic Challenge
ier material” and “frequent review of content” are aca-
demic advantages of heterogeneous grouping, was that If gifted students are educated in heterogeneous class-
response based on personal experience of both methods, rooms, means must be found to provide them with aca-
or did the student make a reasoned guess when respond- demic challenge (Tomlinson, 1995). Highly able students
ing about the setting with which he or she may have been must be freed from moving at the slow pace needed by
unfamiliar? A highly able student who values the fast pace their classmates. They must be provided more complex
of a gifted classroom is unlikely to value the frequent rep- and advanced materials. If the school does not provide
etition of a regular classroom. time for these students to meet together with a resource
Students were not asked to rank their responses teacher trained in gifted education, then the classroom
regarding advantages and disadvantages in order of impor- teachers must fill the void. High-ability elementary stu-
tance to them, nor were they asked to indicate if they dents can be clustered together in groups of six or less with
placed greater value or weight on some sets of advantages a teacher willing and trained to make the curricular
(e.g., social advantages of homogeneous grouping) or sets changes required to challenge advanced students. If high-
of disadvantages (e.g., academic disadvantages of heteroge- ability students at the secondary level are not provided
neous grouping). with class strands that place them together for the courses
These issues raise a question about interpretation of in which they are advanced, then these students will need
such data: Should student responses be given equal weight to be provided opportunities for acceleration and advance-
when interpreting the data, especially in cases where stu- ment outside school. They may need to be connected with
dent responses do not parallel best practices as we cur- community mentors in their particular fields of interest

18 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8 NO 1
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on March 14, 2015
 GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

and talent or to be informed about college courses avail- demand. At the same time, we must try to minimize the
able to them by correspondence or distance learning or social/emotional disadvantages our participants attributed
through summer programs. to mixed-ability groups: (a) teasing by peers; (b) public
embarrassment or humiliation to gifted students when
Need for Appropriately Trained Counselors singled out or ridiculed by teachers because of their gift-
edness; and (c) frustration, impatience, and loneliness
This study provides support for prior research suggest- resulting from being surrounded daily by peers who do
ing that gifted students have unique social/emotional not understand them or share their interests.
needs that require differentiated counseling support In addition, program administrators need to find ways
(Moon, Kelly, & Feldhusen, 1997; Neihart, Reiss, to accommodate the desire of many gifted and talented
Robinson, & Moon, 2002). Gifted students need school students in homogeneous settings to maintain frequent
counselors who are trained in the social, emotional, and contact with their nongifted friends. Providing gifted stu-
career planning needs of gifted and talented students and dents time with nongifted peers is not a difficult feat if the
whose schedules reserve time for meeting with these stu- school campus contains a heterogeneous population.
dents singly or in small groups to discuss issues unique to Gifted elementary and middle school students, even when
their exceptionalities. Gifted students need some time assigned to a self-contained gifted classroom, may con-
daily to work together and talk out of earshot of nongifted tinue to share recess, lunch periods, and special school
peers. Counselors can supervise small-group discussions assemblies with their nongifted peers. In the same manner,
in other settings. Indeed, school counselors are in a pivotal junior high and senior high students enrolled in acceler-
position to advocate for gifted students’ needs, both aca- ated strands have many opportunities to interact with
demically and socially/emotionally, especially at the high nongifted peers through courses in which they are not
school level. They can support gifted students through (a) advanced, as well as through school clubs, dances, assem-
counseling groups; (b) parent education meetings; (c) blies, activities, sports, art, and music programs.
judicious scheduling of high-ability students’ courses so Combining these with teachers trained specifically to
work with highly able students and school counselors cog-
they have opportunities, if they so desire, to interact with
nizant of social, emotional, and career planning issues
students who are not in their high-ability group; (d) in-
unique to highly able students seems to be the best recipe
servicing classroom teachers about the traits and needs of
for ensuring that gifted students experience the
gifted and talented students; (e) establishing a personal
social/emotional advantages of both homogeneous and
library of resources that may be used to inform students,
heterogeneous grouping.
parents, and teachers about giftedness and talent; and (f)
maintaining an open and trusting relationship with each
highly able student.
This study suggests that school counselors need to be
References
especially sensitive to the self-esteem needs of some highly
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student
able students to be at the top of peer groups from time to motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.
time. These issues may require counseling support, moti- Baker, J. A., Bridger, R., & Evans, K. (1998). Models of under-
vational re-training, or both if gifted students are to learn achievement among gifted preadolescents: The role of per-
to function well in an intellectually competitive environ- sonal, family, and school factors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42,
ment, powered by mastery motivation, rather than per- 5–15.
formance motivation. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How
“equity” can lead to inequity for high-potential students.
Social/Emotional Needs Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 2, 249–292.
Bland, L. C., Sowa, C. J., & Callahan, C. M. (1994). An
overview of resilience in gifted children. Roeper Review, 17,
We must continue to ensure that gifted and talented
77–80.
students have access to the social/emotional advantages
Clasen, D. R., & Clasen, R. E., (1995). Underachievement of
they attribute to homogeneous grouping: (a) an opportu-
highly able students and the peer society. Gifted and Talented
nity to be with peers who share similar characteristics, International, 10, 67–76.
interests, abilities, and struggles; (b) teachers who are com- Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1991). Unfair expectations: A pilot study of
petent and caring of highly able students; and (c) freedom middle school students’ comparisons of gifted and regular
from the responsibility to tutor less able students upon classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 56–63.

VOL 48 N O 1 • W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 • G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY 19
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on March 14, 2015
GIFTED STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M. (1991). The Technical, normative, and political considerations.
social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: Managing Educational Researcher, 12–21.
the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods
15, 44–55. (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Delcourt, M. A. B., & Evans, K. (1994, November). Qualitative Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education:
extension of the learning outcomes study. Charlottesville: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, Prentice-Hall.
University of Virginia. Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argu-
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personal- ment against cooperative learning for talented students.
ity, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9–27.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Robinson, N. M., & Noble, K. D. (1991). Social-emotional
Educational Leadership, 46, 6–11. development and adjustment of gifted children. In M. C.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping gifted stu- Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook
dents: Issues and concerns. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65, 63–67. of special education: Research and practice. Vol. 4: Emerging pro-
Gross, M. U. M. (1989). The pursuit of excellence or the search grams (pp.57–76). New York: Pergamon Press.
for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Rogers, K. B. (1991). Relationship of grouping practices to the educa-
Roeper Review, 11, 189–194. tion of the gifted and talented learners. Storrs: National Research
Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London: Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of
Routledge. Connecticut.
Kerr, B. A. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women. Columbus: Ohio Sayler, M. F., & Brookshire, W. K. (1993). Social, emotional,
Psychology Press. and behavioral adjustment of accelerated students, students
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on in gifted classes, and regular students in eighth grade. Gifted
student achievement. Equity & Excellence, 23, 22–30. Child Quarterly, 37, 150–154.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1997). Ability grouping. In N. Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral
Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education change. Review of Educational Research, 52, 149–174.
(2nd ed., pp. 230–242). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Silverman, L. K. (1993). Social development, leadership, and
Lawton, M. (1992, February 5). Gifted elementary students lan- gender issues. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted
guishing in regular classrooms, studies suggest. Education and talented (pp. 291–327). Denver: Love.
Week, 11(20), 4. Slavin, R. E. (1987). Grouping for instruction: Equity and effec-
Moon, S. M., Kelly, K. R., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Specialized tiveness. Equity & Excellence, 23, 31–36.
counseling services for gifted youth and their families: A Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in
needs assessment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 16–25. secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of
Moon, S. M., Nelson, T. S., & Piercy, F. P. (1993). Family ther- Educational Research, 60, 471–499.
apy with a highly gifted adolescent. Journal of Family Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom. New York: Simon &
Psychology, 4(3), 1–16. Schuster.
Moon, S. M., & Rosselli, H. C. (2000). Developing gifted pro- Tomlinson, C. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed abil-
grams. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. ity classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
F. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook Giftedness and and Curriculum Development.
Talent (2nd ed., pp. 499–521). New York: Pergamon Press.
Moon, S. M., Swift, M., & Shallenberger, A. (2002). Perceptions
of a self-contained class of fourth- and fifth-grade students Author Note
with high to extreme levels of intellectual giftedness. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 46, 64–79.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the
Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M.
National Association for Gifted Children conference,
(Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted chil-
dren: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Indianapolis, IN, November, 1996, and appeared in the
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track. New Haven: Yale University NAGC 1997 Research Briefs under the title: “‘This Is How
Press. I Feel When . . .’: Social and Academic Effects of Grouping
Oakes, J. (1992, May). Can tracking research inform practice? Gifted and Talented Students.”

20 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY • W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 • VO L 4 8 NO 1
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIV on March 14, 2015