Action Research and Practical Inquiry: How Can I Meet the Needs of the High-Ability Student within My Regular Education Classroom?

Hughes, Lynn

doi:10.1177/016235329902200304

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas the research on ability grouping showed detrimental effects for low-achieving students, the results on flexible grouping indicate positive effects for all students (Gentry & Owens, 1999;Hughes, 1999), including low-achieving students. The current study supports these findings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…One recent and widely discussed response to the problems stemming from ability grouping is flexible grouping (Chapman, 1995;Flood, Lapp, Flood, & Nagel, 1992;Gentry & Owen, 1999;Hughes, 1999;Segro, 1995;Stone, 1995). The purpose of flexible grouping is to group and regroup students based on particular student learning needs as determined through continuous assessment.…”

Section: Perspective and Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chapman observed the use of whole-group, small-group, partner, and individual groupings for literacy and concluded that there is no one best way to group students for instruction; flexible grouping that meets instructional purposes and supports student learning at appropriate developmental levels is necessary. Hughes (1999) conducted an action research study designed to determine whether flexible grouping would meet the needs of her highability learners. She discovered that the four activities she studied met not only the needs of her gifted students but the needs of all her students: differentiated instruction and assessment, engagement of students in academic decision making, use of flexible grouping, and planning for the right amount of enrichment versus acceleration.…”

Section: Perspective and Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Flexible Grouping and Student Learning in a High-Needs School

Castle¹,

Deniz

M³

2005

Education and Urban Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study focused on the impact of flexible grouping on student learning during a period of time in a high-needs school. The study tracked nontransient, below-goal elementary students on multiple literacy assessments during a 5-year flexible grouping implementation. Results showed that the percentage of students attaining mastery increased in 16 of 19 over-time comparisons. Increases in the percentage of students At Mastery ranged from 10% to 57%. The percentage of teachers using flexible grouping on a weekly basis increased from 25% to 95% during the same 5-year period. Teachers attributed the impact of flexible grouping to (a) focused instruction related to particular learning needs, (b) the ability to keep student attention focused on the instructional task, and (c) increased student confidence. The results support the use of flexible grouping to improve student learning for below-goal students without the potentially negative effects of ability grouping.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Perspective and Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Perspective and Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Flexible Grouping and Student Learning in a High-Needs School

Castle¹,

Deniz

M³

2005

Education and Urban Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Noddings (1992) expressed the value of giving students the opportunity to determine the direction of their learning, noting that students who have ownership in learning may be more motivated to learn. Likewise, Hughes (1999) and Gentry, Rizza, and Gable (2001) recommended that teachers engage students in academic decisionmaking and encourage student choice in learning.…”

Section: Extensive Use Of Choicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unlocking the GATE to Differentiation: A Qualitative Study of Two Self-Contained Gifted Classes

Linn-Cohen¹,

Hertzog

2007

Journal for the Education of the Gifted

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

the main purpose of this qualitative study was to examine and describe the differentiation strategies implemented in 4th-and 5th-grade gifted classrooms, both selfcontained, at a public elementary school located in California. this study documented, described, and captured the daily practice of two teachers and the teaching and learning experiences that occurred in a self-contained gifted program. findings illuminated strategies teachers used to challenge and engage students. an emphasis on integrated units, student choice, and firsthand experiences characterized the curriculum in the gifted program. teachers said they had more autonomy and academic freedom to differentiate curriculum for individual students than their colleagues who were teaching in the general education classrooms. Students who are identified as gifted and talented are taught in a variety of educational settings including full-time self-contained classrooms, pull-out programs, and general heterogeneous classrooms. Regardless of where students are taught during their education, they all need curriculum and instruction that is challenging and engaging. The term differentiation is used in a variety of contexts in fields, such as special education, gifted education, and English as a second language instruction, to describe how teachers modify the general curriculum and instruction. This widespread use of the term differentiation highlights the need for educators in the field of gifted

show abstract

“…Because of their advanced cognitive functioning (Gross, 2000), internal locus of control (McLaughlin & Saccuzzo, 1997), motivation (A. Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998), and talents (Lupkowski-Shoplik & Assouline, 1994;Winner & Martino, 2000), teachers need to provide intellectual challenge in their classrooms (Ablard & Tissot, 1998;Lynch, 1992) and foster an environment that values different cultures (Grantham & Ford, 1998;Harmon, 2002;Shade, 1997), provide access to mentors (Hébert & Neumeister, 2000; T. R. Moon & Callahan, 2001), and give students a voice in their learning process (Hughes, 1999;Kanevsky & Keighley, 2003).…”

Section: Standard 2: Development and Characteristics Of Learners Research Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%