High-Ability Students’ Participation in Specialized Instructional Delivery Models

Abstract

Established in the early 1970s, the talent search model has garnered strong theoretical and programming support for addressing the academic needs of highly able students. The two main components of the talent search model are discovery (identification) and development (programming) of academic talent. Discovery of academically talented elementary and middle school students occurs via the process of above-level testing, usually offered through university-based centers. The essence of talent search program intervention is acceleration, which has robust research support as the most effective intervention for high-ability students. Whereas talent search identification and programming are university based, talent search participants receive nearly all of their instruction in K-12 settings, where academic acceleration is less likely to be implemented. In this investigation, a large sample of talent search participants (n = 5,844) were asked questions designed to measure the various ways in which the students study mathematics, science, and language arts (writing and reading) in the K-12 setting. More than two thirds of the study sample reported that they were taught in the regular classroom, learning the same material, at the same level and pace as nongifted peers. The type of curriculum differentiation or program delivery model (e.g., small-group instruction) reported by the students varied according to subject area, with the greatest percentage of reports of differentiated delivery in mathematics. Main effects were found for gender, grade, and ability. Implications for school-based accelerative interventions are presented.

Reducing Excellence Gaps: A Systematic Review of Research on Equity in Advanced Education

“…A total of 23 articles discussed flexible ability grouping as a strategy to reduce excellence gaps. Fourteen of those studies used quantitative methodologies (Adelson & Carpenter, 2011; Assouline et al, 2013; Barber & Wasson, 2015; Becker et al, 2014; Brulles, Peters, & Saunders, 2012; Catsambis & Buttaro, 2012; Decristan et al, 2017; Dougherty et al, 2017; Garrett & Hong, 2016; Preckel & Brüll, 2010; Redding & Grissom, 2021; Steenbergen-Hu et al, 2016; Valiandes, 2015; Vogl & Preckel, 2014), 8 used qualitative approaches (Benny & Blonder, 2018; Faber et al, 2022; Galanti, 2021; Meyer et al, 2020; Missett et al, 2014; Mullett et al, 2018; Park & Datnow, 2017; Rubenstein et al, 2015), and 1 used mixed methods (Murphy et al, 2017). Sixteen of the studies focused on learning contexts in the United States, and 7 studies examined learning contexts in other countries, including 4 in Germany (Becker et al, 2014; Decristan et al, 2017; Preckel & Brüll, 2010; Vogl & Preckel, 2014), 1 in Cyprus (Valiandes, 2015), and 1 systematic review that evaluated studies in nine different countries (Faber et al, 2022).…”

Promoting High-Achieving Students Through Differentiated Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms—A Systematic Review

“…Three other studies asked high-achieving students about the frequency of DI in their mixed-ability classroom. In two studies from the United States, more than two-thirds of the students said that their instruction is not differentiated and that they learn the same content, at the same level, and the same pace as the other students (Assouline et al, 2013; Swiatek & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2003). In the third study, from Turkey, the picture was somewhat reversed when students were asked if they can work with their intellectual peers and if the lessons are according to their needs, interests, and knowledge.…”

Leading Differentiated Learning for the Gifted

“…All four case-study principals advocated for acceleration of gifted learners where needed, and discussed the positive achievement outcomes of accelerated learners. Given the generally negative attitudes towards and non-implementation of acceleration (Hoogeveen et al, 2005;Vialle et al, 2001), and continued underuse of acceleration despite strong support for acceleration (Assouline et al, 2013;, this finding from a leadership perspective about using accelerated provisions for gifted learners is significant. The principals also emphasised that knowledge of teacher practice was essential for improving teaching and curriculum.…”