Schoolwide Mathematics Achievement Within the Gifted Cluster Grouping Model

Abstract

An increasing number of schools are implementing gifted cluster grouping models as a cost-effective way to provide gifted services. This study is an example of comparative action research in the form of a quantitative case study that focused on mathematic achievement for nongifted students in a district that incorporated a schoolwide cluster grouping model. Although previous research found that gifted students performed better in the cluster setting, this study sought to determine the effects of the cluster model on nongifted students. Findings from this research indicate that general education students in the gifted cluster classes and those not in the gifted clusters experienced similar levels of academic growth in mathematics. Data disaggregated according to grade level, gender, ethnicity, and English language learner status showed that students achieved at similar rates in mathematics in gifted cluster classrooms and those classrooms without the gifted cluster groups.

Ability Grouping is on the Rise, but Should It Be?

“…In the end, researchers found no evidence to show that school-wide cluster grouping benefited or harmed academic achievement in the area of reading, but displayed positive results in math the year after implementation, suggesting that it may take more than one year for the benefits of cluster grouping to become apparent. The results of Matthews et al (2013) align with the findings of Brulles et al (2012) which concluded that school-wide cluster grouping did not have any lasting benefits or harm to students' academic achievement. Matthews et al (2013) found these results in reading, whereas Brulles et al (2012) found them in mathematics, which contradicts Matthews et al's (2013) research that school-wide cluster grouping increases students' math achievement.…”

“…Researchers have studied different styles of between-class ability grouping such as multilevel classes (Gentry & MacDougall, 2009;Kulik & Kulik, 1992;Tieso, 2003), cross-grade grouping (Kulik & Kulik, 1992;Tieso, 2003), school-wide cluster grouping (Brulles, Peters, & Saunders, 2012;Gentry & MacDougall, 2009;Matthews et al, 2009), total-school cluster grouping (Gentry & Owen, 1999;Gentry & MacDougall, 2009), and tracking (Gentry & MacDougall, 2009;Matthews et al, 2009;Worthy, 2010).…”

“…c. School-wide cluster grouping: School-wide cluster grouping is described as the placement of high achieving or gifted students in a regular education classroom (Gentry & MacDougall, 2009). One purpose of this arrangement is to establish an equalized range of achievement levels in a classroom and limit extreme variations of student abilities (Brulles et al, 2012). The classroom teacher differentiates the curriculum and instruction for all abilities while teaching.…”

“…Others find insignificant effects, neither positively nor negatively affecting student achievement (Brulles et al, 2012;Kulik & Kulik, 1992;Leonard, 2001). Whether researchers fully support ability grouping, believe that ability groups cause negative consequences, or argue that certain styles of ability grouping trump others, it is crucial to determine the practices that are most effective for learners in your school.…”

“…In addition to the analysis on multilevel classes, Kulik and Kulik (1992) also investigated the effects of cross-grade grouping programs on student academic achievement and found that cross-grade grouping programs had a positive effect on students' academic achievement with and overall effect size of Cohen's d = .30. Similar toKulik and Kulik (1992), Brulles, Peters, and Saunders (2012) also examined the effects of betweenclass ability grouping, but instead focused on school-wide cluster grouping. The purpose of the study was to determine how non-gifted students performed in mathematics when placed in gifted cluster classrooms as opposed to non-gifted cluster classrooms in an urban school district that had been implementing school-wide cluster grouping for six years.…”