Volume 1 - Issue 1 - DBU Journal for K-12 Educational Leadership - Page 18

16 grouped classrooms. Rogers (2007) conducted a meta-analysis which sup - ported homogeneous grouping for ensuring the academic growth of gifted students. Rogers (2007) also reviewed 13 research studies on homogeneous grouping and conclud- ed that gifted students grouped among intellectual peers “produced marked academic achievement gains as well as moderate increases in attitude toward academic subjects” (p. 9). The researchers in Rogers’ (2007) review cited these benefits of homogeneous grouping of gifted students: aca - demic achievement improved (Gentry, 1999); students hav - ing a more realistic perception of their academic strengths and weaknesses and increased academic challenge that was more consistent in the classroom (Kulik 2003, Rogers, 2007); teachers had the ability to meet the emotional and social needs of gifted students (Kulik 2003, Rogers, 2007); and teachers were better able to address cognitive demands when the range of student abilities was narrower (Rogers, 2007). In conclusion, homogeneous grouping removes the ceiling for gifted students and diminishes underachieve- ment over time (Gentry & Mann, 2008). By grouping more homogeneously, the “façade of effort and ability can be re - moved and replaced with more appropriate challenge and rigor” (Gentry & Mann, 2008, p. 15). Heterogeneous Grouping The inclusion model, imported from special education, has spawned the impetus for heterogeneous grouping. Kulik’s (1992) seminal study of grouping asserted that the “dam - age to gifted students would be truly great if, in the name of de-tracking, schools eliminated enriched and accelerated classes” (p. 73). Heterogeneous grouping appeases cultur- al and socio-political ends, but the overall impact to gifted programs is detrimental in the long run (Reis, 2004). Ability grouping and content acceleration “must be attended to in some form in order to ensure that programs are meaning- ful for this special group of learners” (Reis, 2004, p. 70). The impediments inherent in moving from the theory of cluster grouped heterogeneous classes to the reality of the general education classroom make this model a difficult one to im - plement and maintain as the model’s success lies solely in the hands of an exceptional teacher. Enrichment instruction: Serving GT Students in Heterogeneous Grouping Enrichment acts as an express lane for gifted students with an added benefit of increased motivation (Gagne, 2007). Also, by condensing or compacting the regular curriculum, time is created for other learning activities. The amount and level of enrichment or compacting of content should be de- pendent on the level of giftedness and academic readiness (Gagne, 2007). Gagne (2007) believed that if the same research survey as Cox, Daniel, and Boston (1985) were conducted at any point in the future, the academic gains for gifted students receiving enrichment in the general education classroom would be similarly categorized as “fragmented and discon - tinuous” (p. 107). Proper enrichment activities should be judged from two perspectives. The first is whether they are relevant with re - spect to the learner’s abilities, interests, needs, and person- ality as well as a learning vehicle to demonstrate maximum academic talent (Gagne, 2007). The enrichment curriculum must be rich cognitively in order to be academically defensi- ble (Gagne, 2007). Especially at the elementary level, learn- ers’ needs can be addressed through personalized activities of choice as well as additional time to pursue personal proj - ects (Gagne, 2007). Enrichment: “How To” for Heterogeneous Classrooms Enrichment for gifted students in a heterogeneous class- room can be differentiated by content, process, or prod - uct (Tomlinson et al., 2006). Differentiating content allows more depth through acceleration. Theoretically, the goal of content differentiation is to remove the learning ceiling and thereby allow highly able students to move through the material at a pace that suits their ability. Content for gifted students can be altered with complexity and abstractness. High ability students can move quickly from acquisition to application and finally to transfer with increased focus on relationships and generalizations (Gentry & Mann, 2008). Process can be differentiated by shared inquiry, creative problem solving, problem-based learning, and discovery learning (Gentry & Mann, 2008). Because these practices are Kathryn Pabst Schaeffer, Ed.D.