The Extent, Nature and Effectiveness of Planned Approaches in ...

other provisions, its effectiveness would no doubt be dependent upon the differentiated provisions inthe regular classroom and schoolwide. Gentry (1999) reports only eight published studies regardingthe effectiveness of cluster grouping: none of these examined the effects upon students other thanthose identified as gifted and talented; all of these were conducted in the United States (as wasGentry’s study); and they were conducted between the years 1962-1994. Gentry concludes thatalthough cluster grouping is commonly suggested, there is little evidence of its effectiveness. As shestates, “Perhaps cluster grouping is recommended in the absence of research … because the practicemakes sense” (p. 8).International perspectives. Rogers (2002b) reports research findings from a 1986 study by LeRosewhich compared the test performances of gifted students who were clustered against equally giftedstudents placed in accelerated classes. Both groups received the same differentiated curriculum. Theclustered students scored significantly higher on tests of verbal creativity and Rogers speculates thatthis could be because a smaller group of students has more opportunity for peer interaction than awhole class.Gentry (1999) conducted a four-year comparative study of two schools in the United States, one whichemployed cluster grouping and the other which did not. The results of her study indicated that clustergrouping led to the increased identification of students as high achieving and fewer students identifiedas low achieving. The teachers in the study felt that this change had occurred because cluster groupinghad created more opportunities for individualisation of instruction. This was because by placing thehighest achievers in one classroom meant that the range of achievement levels in other classrooms wasrestricted. As a whole, the students in the treatment school (employing cluster grouping) demonstratedsignificant gains in overall achievement after three years, despite the fact that the treatment schoolbegan with lower achievement levels. Gentry concludes that the use of cluster grouping led to higherteacher expectations, greater use of gifted education strategies, and growth in the use of abilitygrouping – all of which would no doubt have a positive impact upon gifted and talented students.Hoover (1993) conducted a survey of teachers in Indiana (USA) classrooms where cluster groups ofgifted students were assigned. The results indicated that teachers perceived this approach as enablingopportunities for interaction with gifted and talented peers, as well as providing challenging tasks andmaterials. They also perceived increased motivation in gifted and talented students. The teachersreported more opportunities for small group work, individual and small group projects and thinkingskills activities for gifted and talented students. Finally, they reported positive relationships betweenthe clustered students and their classroom peers.National perspectives. As stated previously, this review of the literature yielded no references inrelation to the effectiveness of cluster grouping in New Zealand schools.Potential Strengths• Elimination of disruption and fragmentation of instruction because students remain in oneclassroom with one teacher (Hoover, 1993).• Interaction with other gifted and talented students throughout the day allowing for intellectualstimulation (Hoover, 1993; Winebrenner & Devlin, 2001), as well as with students of allability levels (Rogers, 2002). Additionally, gifted students will feel more comfortable whengiven the opportunity to interact with similar peers (Winebrenner & Devlin, 2001). Thus,cluster grouping in regular classrooms enables gifted and talented students to interact withpeers of like ability for intellectual stimulation and social-emotional support (Hoover &Sayler, 1993).• Eases the implementation of differentiated learning experiences and increases the likehoodteachers will implement differentiated experiences (Winebrenner & Devlin, 2001). AsCallahan (2001a) states, “Teachers are unlikely to differentiate for one or two students” (p.151).90