What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K–12 Students’ Academic Achievement

Two second-order meta-analyses synthesized approximately 100 years of research on the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement. Outcomes of 13 ability grouping meta-analyses showed that students benefited from within-class grouping (0.19 ≤ g ≤ 0.30), cross-grade subject grouping (g = 0.26), and special grouping for the gifted (g = 0.37), but did not benefit from between-class grouping (0.04 ≤ g ≤0.06); the effects did not vary for high-, medium-, and low-ability students. Three acceleration meta-analyses showed that accelerated students significantly outperformed their nonaccelerated same-age peers (g = 0.70) but did not differ significantly from nonaccelerated older peers (g = 0.09). Three other meta-analyses that aggregated outcomes across specific forms of acceleration found that acceleration appeared to have a positive, moderate, and statistically significant impact on students’ academic achievement (g = 0.42).

[1]  Chen-Lin C. Kulik,et al.  Effects of Ability Grouping on Student Achievement , 1987 .

[2]  Hristos Doucouliagos,et al.  Meta‐regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias , 2014, Research synthesis methods.

[3]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Ability Grouping in the Middle Grades: Achievement Effects and Alternatives , 1993, The Elementary School Journal.

[4]  Mieke Goos,et al.  The effect of class composition by gender and ability on secondary school students’ school well-being and academic self-concept: A literature review , 2012 .

[5]  Maher M. Abu-Hilal,et al.  The big-fish-little-pond effect: Generalizability of social comparison processes over two age cohorts from Western, Asian, and Middle Eastern Islamic countries. , 2015 .

[6]  Ellen B. Goldring.  Assessing the status of information on classroom organizational frameworks for gifted students. , 1990 .

[7]  Tommy Stanley,et al.  Beyond Publication Bias , 2005 .

[8]  Alex J Sutton,et al.  Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  The effect of intraclass ability grouping on arithmetic achievement in the sixth grade. , 1960 .

[10]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Effects of Whole Class, Ability Grouped, and Individualized Instruction on Mathematics Achievement , 1985 .

[11]  Geoffrey D. Borman,et al.  Comprehensive School Reform and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis , 2003 .

[12]  Matthew C. Makel,et al.  Changing the pond, not the fish: Following high-ability students across different educational environments , 2012 .

[13]  M. Borenstein,et al.  Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments , 2006 .

[14]  D. Lubinski,et al.  States of excellence. , 2000, The American psychologist.

[15]  J. Hattie.  Classroom Composition and Peer Effects. , 2002 .

[16]  J. Stanley.  Helping students learn only what they don't already know. , 2000 .

[17]  W. Moore,et al.  A Comparison of Pupil Achievement after One and One-Half and Three Years in a Nongraded Program , 1967 .

[18]  Chen-Lin C. Kulik,et al.  Effects of Ability Grouping on Secondary School Students: A Meta-analysis of Evaluation Findings , 1981 .

[19]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in Elementary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis , 1986 .

[20]  S. M. Moon,et al.  The Effects of Acceleration on High-Ability Learners: A Meta-Analysis , 2011 .

[21]  S. Pfeiffer,et al.  Identification of Gifted Students in the United States Today: A Look at State Definitions, Policies, and Practices , 2012 .

[22]  Y. Lou,et al.  Within-Class Grouping: A Meta-Analysis , 1996 .

[23]  M. Matthews,et al.  Gifted Education Research From the Economists’ Perspective , 2016 .

[24]  Nicholas D. Myers,et al.  A Review of Meta-Analyses in Education , 2012 .

[25]  L. Hedges,et al.  Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. , 1998 .

[26]  Frank L. Schmidt,et al.  Methods for Second Order Meta-Analysis and Illustrative Applications , 2013 .

[27]  Matthew C. Makel,et al.  Facts Are More Important Than Novelty , 2014 .

[28]  Joshua R. Polanin,et al.  Overviews in Education Research , 2017 .

[29]  E. Jones,et al.  Practitioner Objections to the Academic Acceleration of Gifted Children , 1989 .

[30]  U. Trautwein,et al.  Tracking Effects Depend on Tracking Type , 2013 .

[31]  Anna K. Chmielewski,et al.  An International Comparison of Achievement Inequality in Within- and Between-School Tracking Systems , 2014, American Journal of Education.

[32]  L. A. Marascuilo,et al.  Tracking and Minority Student Attitudes and Performance , 1972 .

[33]  James A. Kulik,et al.  Meta-analytic Findings on Grouping Programs , 1992 .

[34]  C. Seashore.  THE GIFTED STUDENT AND RESEARCH. , 1922, Science.

[35]  J. Dewar.  Grouping for Arithmetic Instruction in Sixth Grade , 1963, The Elementary School Journal.

[36]  S Duval,et al.  Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis , 2000, Biometrics.

[37]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis , 1990 .

[38]  F. Jr.MorganElmer,et al.  The Joplin plan of reading vs. a traditional method. , 1960 .

[39]  Carol L. Tieso.  Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore , 2003 .

[40]  James A. Kulik,et al.  Effects of Accelerated Instruction on Students , 1984 .

[41]  Laddie J. Bicak.  Achievement in eighth grade science by heterogeneous and homogeneous classes , 1964 .

[42]  Frederick Mosteller,et al.  Sustained Inquiry in Education: Lessons from Skill Grouping and Class Size , 1996 .

[43]  Pressey Sl.  Time-saving in professional training. , 1946 .

[44]  Harris Cooper,et al.  The overview of reviews: unique challenges and opportunities when research syntheses are the principal elements of new integrative scholarship. , 2012, The American psychologist.

[45]  H. Marsh,et al.  Within-school social comparison: How students perceive the standing of their class predicts academic self-concept. , 2009 .

[46]  Jeremy Grimshaw,et al.  AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[47]  Meeting Children's Reading Needs in the Middle Grades: A Preliminary Report , 1954, The Elementary School Journal.

[48]  Miraca U. M. Gross.  The Use of Radical Acceleration in Cases of Extreme Intellectual Precocity , 1992 .