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

Fielder, Lange and Winebrenner (2002) also discuss this critical issue, concluding that the goals ofgifted programmes are often a mismatch with the measures of effectiveness utilised. As they state,“what gifted students learn should be measured by far more comprehensive criteria than increasedachievement test scores” (p. 109). Kulik (2003) comments, in relation to ability grouping, that thereported modest gains in achievement are in fact quite remarkable given that most programmes “…donot ordinarily provide more work on the basic skills … However, the standardised achievement testsused to evaluate the effects of most enrichment programs stress basic skills” (p. 275).Allan (1991) discusses another reason why studies of effectiveness may give a distorted picture ofactual achievement: the ceiling effect, or highest scores attainable for each level. As she states, “Thescores of gifted students usually approach the ceiling on standardized achievement tests, making itvery difficult to show significant academic improvement on their part” (p. 60). In other words, whengifted and talented students reach the upper ceiling on measures of achievement, the test itselfpotentially masks their actual degree of achievement gains. She concludes by warning that withresearch studies of this nature, the ‘real benefits’ could in fact be greater than the method ormeasurements might show. Goldring (1990) warns of test scores regressing toward the mean,especially if two matched groups are drawn from different populations.Finally, Slavin (1987, 1988, 1991) repeatedly states that there is systematic bias in gifted educationresearch. This bias is seen as moving in one direction – favouring the gifted and talented. However,Goldring (1990) advises researchers to “… investigate the extent to which those studies are biased,rather than merely discount them …” (p. 315). In this review issues which might be perceived byopponents as lending themselves toward gifted education biases have been discussed by examining‘both sides of the coin.’ Additionally, in describing research findings these potential methodologicallimitations are acknowledged and readers should be cognisant of potential limitations of what isreported.Making sense of the research. Rogers (2002a) describes five approaches to research upon whichpractitioners commonly make decisions, as they try to “make sense of the overwhelming body ofresearch that is out there” (p. 103). She explains these as follows:• I know this student who… – applying past successful experiences to current situations, or“anecdotal research, at best.”• I found this study – relying upon one or two research studies to support one’s ‘gut feelings.’• Famous person – applying elements of a researcher’s findings to support a particular practice,which neither adequately nor accurately portray the research.• Apples and oranges – meta-analytic approaches which report average effect sizes across arange of studies.• Best-evidence – taking meta-analysis a step further by categorising studies by instructionalstrategy, selecting the strongest studies for generalisations.Rogers (2002a) strongly supports the latter two approaches as the most appropriate for determiningeffectiveness, and when available these are reported in the review. However, she also warns that bothof these approaches, meta-analysis and best-evidence synthesis, carry with them inherent dangers intheir design. For example, in some cases of meta-analysis little care may be given to the examinationof the quality of individual research, sample sizes, or teaching strategies implemented. Syntheses ofbest-evidence research can be subjective, with the researcher playing the role of ‘judge and jury.’ Sheadvises educators interested in the outcomes for gifted and talented students to carefully examinestudies of this nature, ensuring that the criteria are rigorous, and the studies are inclusive of gifted andtalented students. For the purposes of this review of the literature, every effort has been made toensure that these criteria have been met, and if not, acknowledged, in the reported research.Additionally, by adhering to the previously outlined criteria for the review, every attempt has beenmade to present the research adequately, accurately, and comprehensively.10