too much too soon?

Gifted Education International 1998 Vol 13, pp 121-135 ©1998 A B Academic Publishers

Jonathan A Plucker University of Maine, USA John Wesley Taylor V Adventist Institute of Advanced Studies, Manila, Philippines

too much too soon? non-radical advanced grade placement and the selfconcept of gifted students Abstract Acceleration is a frequently recommended programming option for academically advanced students that enjoys considerable research support. Yet practitioners often object to acceleration on the grounds that it has negative effects upon students' social and emotional development. Research on affective outcomes of techniques such as grade advancement are mixed, containing reports of positive, negative, and neutral outcomes, and the role of gender and ethnicity is seldom explored. This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship between advanced grade placement and the self-concept of gifted students. Over 600 gifted adolescents completed the Self-Description Questionnaire-II (SDQII) and provided demographic information. Nearly 25% of the students were grade advanced, with Caucasian students being grade advanced significantly more often than Hispanic or African American students. No difference was found in any facet of self-concept between grade advanced and non-advanced students (and interactions of advanced status and gender and/or grade level). Readers are cautioned that the study was causal/comparative and not experimental in nature. Acceleration has emerged as a prominent, although often controversial, programming option in gifted education. Several advocates for gifted students (Benbow & Stanley, 1983; Feldhusen, 1991; Van Tassel-Baska, 1992) recommend that acceleration be considered the major approach to educating gifted youth.

Paulus (1984) defines academic acceleration as educational "flexibility based on individual abilities without regard for age" (p. 98). A number of acceleration options have been delineated in the literature, including early school entrance, grade skipping, grade telescoping, curriculum compacting, subject

Research for this report was supported under the Javits Act Program (Grant No. R206R00001) as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education. Grantees undertaking such projects are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment. This report, therefore, does not necessarily represent positions or policies of the Government, and no official endorsement should be inferred. This paper is based upon a presentation at the annual conference of Social and Emotional Needs of the Gifted (SENG), Richmond. Virginia. Volume 13 No 2 1998, 121

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016

acceleration, nongraded classrooms, concurrent enrollment (e.g., taking high school and college classes at the same time), extra courseloads, summer courses, mentorships, credit by examination, the International Baccalaureate program, and early college admission (Cox & Daniel, 1985; Rogers, 1991; Rogers & Kimpston, 1992; Southern & Jones, 1991; Southern, Jones, & Stanley, 1993). Expected benefits include intellectual challenge, enhanced personal motivation, appropriate academic development, and increases in productivity and opportunity for exploration (Cox & Daniel, 1985; Southern & Jones, 1991). Of the numerous academic interventions recommended for gifted students, acceleration enjoys some of the strongest empirical support, both in meta-analyses and reviews across programs (Daurio, 1980; Feldhusen, Proctor, & Black, 1986; Kulik & Kulik, 1982, 1984, 1992; Proctor, Black, & Feldhusen, 1986; Proctor, Feldhusen, & Black, 1988; Rogers, 1991, 1993; Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward, 1991) and with respect to specific acceleration programs (Barnett & Durden, 1993; Brody, Assouline, & Stanley, 1990; Confessore, 1991; Gross, 1992; Janos, 1987; Kolitch & Brody, 1992; Noble, Robinson, & Gunderson, 1993; Swiatek, 1993; Swiatek & Benbow, 1991; Thomas, 1989, 1993). In addition to the evidence of substantial academic benefits, accelerated students regard academic acceleration as a highly positive experience (Noble & Drummond, 1992; Noble, Robinson, & Gunderson, 1993; Thomas, 1989). Parents of children who skipped subjects or grades reveal overwhelming satisfaction with the decision to accelerate their children - to the point that some parents indicated that if they were to do it over again, they would choose to accel-

erate their children at an even earlier age (Rimm & Lovance, 1992). However, despite the hearty endorsement by many educators of the gifted, acceleration has prompted poignant concerns and markedly negative perceptions of program efficacy (Jones & Southern, 1991, Rogers & Kimpston, 1992). For example, elementary school teachers and principals express concern regarding the social and emotional effects of acceleration on gifted children (Jones & Southern, 1992; Townsend & Patrick, 1993). Although superintendents and secondary teachers are generally more favorable toward acceleration than parents or elementary teachers, programming options that remove gifted children from their agemates and/or average ability peers are still viewed with a certain degree of reservation and suspicion (Edlind, 1988). Indeed, coordinators of gifted programs, while more favorably disposed toward acceleration than school principals, psychologists, or teachers, view the accelerative process as potentially hazardous (Southern, Jones, & Fiscus, 1989). Students who are not accelerated do not believe that acceleration is a fair learning practice until they reach late adolescence (Thorkildsen, 1993). Apparently, those individuals most favorably disposed toward academic acceleration are those - whether principals, psychologists, teachers, or students who have personal or family experience with acceleration (Southern, Jones, & Fiscus, 1989).

Review of the Literature Since most concerns about the acceleration of gifted students focus upon the affective dimension, the major focus of the present study was the comparison of the self-

122, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016

concept of adolescents who have and have not experienced academic acceleration. In order to provide an adequate framework for this study, research literature was examined regarding adolescent self-concept and the relationship between acceleration and selfconcept. Adolescent Self-concept In 1976, Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton reviewed the literature with respect to the measurement of self-concept and concluded that the theoretical and empirical foundations of self-concept research were of generally poor quality. The authors suggested a model of self-concept that was both hierarchical and multifaceted, characterized by general self-concept at the top and "situation-specific" self-concept at the base (p. 412) and including multiple facets (e.g., "school, social acceptance, physical attractiveness" [p. 412]). Although some researchers rejected the hierarchical nature of the model and its revision (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985) on both empirical and theoretical grounds (Harter, 1986), substantive support for both hierarchical and multifaceted aspects of self-concept is present in the research literature (Byrne, 1984; Marsh, 1990b, 1990d, 1994; Marsh & Hocevar, 1985; Marsh & Smith, 1987). Age and gender differences in self-concept structure. Shavelson et al. (1976) hypothesized

that specific dimensions of self-concept would decrease in stability as the hierarchy was descended, and that the hierarchy would gradually weaken as students progressed through adolescence. Research during the ensuing 20 years has produced somewhat contradictory results. Adolescent self-concept is generally stable (as opposed to oscillating), with a slight decrease during preadolescence and slight increase during

late adolescence (Crain & Bracken, 1994; Marsh, 1989a; Marsh, Craven, & Debus, 1991; Marsh, Parker, & Barnes, 1985; Mullis, Mullis, & Normandin, 1992; Osborne & LeGette, 1982). However, investigations of the factor structure of self-concept find the structure to be invariant across age levels (Marsh, 1993b; Marsh, Barnes, Cairns, & Tidman, 1984). This indicates that while mean differences in self-concept exist among younger and older adolescents, the overall structural relationship of specific facets of self-concept does not change. Gender differences in self-concept receive a great deal of attention in educational research, which is not surprising considering the impact of affective factors upon the achievement and development of adolescent females (Brophy, 1985, 1986; Eccles & Blumfield, 1985; Fennema & Petersen, 1985). Wylie (1979) found little evidence for gender differences in self-concept, and several researchers subsequently arrived at similar results (Marsh, 1989a, 1989b; Mullis, Mullis, & Normandin, 1992). Differences that do appear tend to be minor and consistent with gender stereotyping (i.e., boys have higher physical self-concepts, girls have higher reading /English self-concepts; Crain & Bracken, 1994; Marsh, 1989a). The self-concept of gifted adolescents. Overall, gifted students evidence a more positive selfconcept than do their age-level peers (Ham & Shaughnessy, 1992; Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Pyryt & Mendaglio, 1994). This difference apparently holds true across gender and ethnic groups (Cooley, Cornell, & Lee, 1991; Yong, 1994) and across diverse programming alternatives for gifted students (Cornell, Delcourt, Goldberg, & Bland, 1992; Goldring, 1990; Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Vaughn, Feldhusen, & Asher, 1991). Indeed, increases in the self-concept of gifted students have been reported for certain programming envi-

Volume 13 No 2 1998, 123

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016

ronments, such as pullout programs and the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Feldhusen, Sayler, Nielsen, & Kolloff, 1990; Renzulli & Reis, 1994). While there is thus quite ample evidence to indicate that gifted students as a whole evidence a more positive total self-concept than do their counterparts, certain important differences emerge when specific aspects of the self-concept are considered. Due to its hierarchical, multifaceted nature, self-concept is best conceptualized as an organized set of self-appraisals across a spectrum of more narrowly defined areas (Byrne, 1984; Marsh, Byrne, & Shavelson, 1988). Gifted students evidence more positive academic and behavioral self-concepts (Brounstein, Holahan, & Dreyden, 1991; Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Kelly & Jordan, 1990; Pyryt & Mendaglio, 1994; Yong & McIntyre, 1991) but similar or more negative social and physical self-concepts (Brounstein, Holahan, & Dreyden, 1991; Kelly & Jordan, 1990) when compared to their peers. Results such as these confirm the relative independence of the specific components of the selfconcept and illustrate that self-perceptions of academic, social, and physical competence contribute strongly toward the overall self-concept of gifted students (Hoge & McScheffrey, 1991).

Academic Acceleration and Self-concept Self-concept is a part of the larger construct of psychosocial well-being. However, when considering this more extended domain, surprisingly few studies have examined the link between academic acceleration and socioemotional development, and those that have are marked by methodological problems (Cornell, 1994; Cornell, Callahan, Bassin, &

Ramsay, 1991). In a meta-analysis of acceleration outcome research, Kulik and Kulik (1984) reported that, while there seemed to be a clear academic benefit from acceleration, too few studies examined social and/or emotional outcomes to warrant conclusions in this area. Similarly, in a best-evidence synthesis, Rogers (1991) observed that socialization and psychological effects of acceleration remained largely unstudied. An analysis of 19 major research syntheses of academic acceleration revealed, in fact, that only two had addressed either the social or emotional ramifications of acceleration (Rogers & Kimpston, 1992). The few studies which contain examinations of the relationship between acceleration and psychosocial competence generally report that accelerates do not appear to have been harmed by the experience (e.g., Kolitch & Brody, 1992; Richardson & Benbow, 1990; Robinson & Janos, 1986; Rogers, 1993; Rogers & Kimpston, 1992; Sayler & Brookshire, 1993; Swiatek & Benbow, 1992). Students who attended accelerated summer programs or entered college before age 14 reported that acceleration benefited them socially (Confessore, 1991; Janos et al., 1988; Thomas, 1989). In terms of the psychoemotional facet, studies of early college entrants indicate positive changes in psychological adjustment as compared to nonaccelerates, with accelerates evidencing strong affective growth (Cornell, Callahan, & Loyd, 1991a) and self-reported long-term emotional well-being (Confessore, 1991; Thomas, 1989). Similarly, early entrants to elementary school expressed more positive perceptions of their emotional development than did students commencing at the normal age (Sayler & Brookshire, 1993). Favorable psychological growth was also evidenced for students participating in subject-based acceleration (Rogers, 1991).

124, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016

Overall, effect sizes for acceleration in terms of social and emotional development are generally small but point toward positive results for accelerated students. A recent meta-analysis of literature on gifted elementary students, for example, reported a mean effect size of .13 for the acceleration intervention (Kent, 1993). In the more restricted domain of self-concept, linkages to academic acceleration have been highly variable. Some studies report significant enhancement of self-concept (Cornell, Callahan, & Loyd, 1991a; Gross, 1992; Thomas, 1989, 1993), other studies find no statistical significance (Brody & Benbow, 1987; Swiatek, 1993; Swiatek & Benbow, 1991), and still other research suggests a drop in student self-appraisals (Lupkowski, Whitmore, & Ramsay, 1992; Noble, Robinson, & Gunderson, 1993). Although reporting that accelerates generally did not seem to be harmed by academic acceleration, a longitudinal study of participants in an accelerated mathematics program reported that the amount of acceleration undertaken "in terms of the number of grades skipped or the number of AP or college courses taken while in high school" did relate negatively to participant self-esteem (Richardson & Benbow, 1990). The relationship, however, was weak (r=-.09). A small drop in self-concept might be explained by social-comparison theory, which proposes that decreases in self-concept may naturally occur due to the fact that accelerates are exposed to higher ability comparison groups than are nonaccelerates (Festinger, 1954; Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; .Richardson & Benbow, 1990). Marsh (1992, 1994) labeled this phenomenon the Big Fish-Little Pond Effect, although Marsh, Chessor, Craven, and Roche (1995) found in their study of elementary gifted students that only academic facets of self-concept declined (i.e., non-aca-

demic facets did not appear to be affected by social comparison processes). The existing body of research is inconclusive with respect to the relationship between academic acceleration and self-concept. Yet the relationship is important: Sisk (1988) proposed that for acceleration to be successful,, gifted students must have a healthy self-concept to withstand competition. Similarly, a study of adjustment to early college entrance (Cornell, Callahan, & Loyd, 1991b) noted that positive self-perceptions were predictive of peer adjustment, behavioral adjustment, and mental health while in the accelerated program. Studies are needed which focus directly on socialization and psychological adjustment in the context of academic acceleration. Furthermore, as Cornell, Callahan, Bassin, and Ramsay (1991) note, "research would more profitably focus on determining for whom acceleration might be desirable, and for whom it might be detrimental (p. 96)." Given the relationship among demographic characteristics and self-concept reviewed above, the lack of research on the impact of gender and grade level upon the acceleration/self-concept relationship also needs to be remedied.

Method The current study was undertaken to address some of the problems associated with the study of both self-concept and its relationship to academic acceleration. Researchers examined differences in the self-concept of accelerated versus non accelerated gifted adolescents. For the purposes of this study, accelerated students were defined as those adolescents who were advanced in grade-level standing by at least one year, with grade-level standing calculated based on the state mandated ages for entrance to the first grade. Volume 13 No 2 1998, 125

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016

Sample and Procedure The sample used in this study was drawn from two groups of students. The first group n=457) included adolescents attending the Summer Enrichment Program (SEP) at the University of Virginia in 1994. Each student completed a demographic questionnaire and the self-concept instrument described below. SEP students live throughout the MidAtlantic region, with a majority from Virginia. Admittance into SEP is determined by reviewer ratings of teacher recommendations, responses to several essay questions, and standardized test scores. Each students' application materials are reviewed by two educators, and the two sets of ratings are combined into one score. Students are then ranked based on their score, and admittance into the program is determined by rank and student preference for certain sessions and courses. The second group of students (n=167) participated in the gifted program of a large, Southwestern city during the 1994-1995 school year. This program relied upon a more traditional, standardized test-based identification procedure, in contrast to the more inclusive multiple-criteria system used in the

summer program. A packet containing the questionnaire and instrument was mailed to each student at his or her home. Utilizing students from both programs created a sample more representative of gifted adolescents across the country (the SEP sample was over 80% Caucasian), helping to increase the external validity of the results. The combined sample for the study (N=624) was 49.3% male. The students were distributed quite evenly in terms of grade level, with somewhat higher percentages in grades six (19.9%), seven (27.2%), and eight (22.2%), than in grades nine (16.7%) and ten (11.4%). Students in fifth, eleventh, and twelfth grade accounted for only 2.5% of the sample. Indication of ethnicity was optional, and only 71.1 % of the sample provided this information. Of this group, 53.8% designated their ethnicity as Caucasian, 14.6% as African American, 6.8% as Asian, 21.6% as Hispanic, 1.4% as Native American, and 1.8% as Other (not specified). Table 1 contains the grade advanced status of students in each subsample and in the total sample. Due to missing demographic data, advanced standing could not be determined for 23 (3.7%) of the students. Of the 114 students with advanced standing, 107 were advanced

Table 1 Grade Advanced Status of Sample Female Sample

SEP

Male

Advanced Not advanced Advanced Not advanced 441

New Mexico 160

170

52

181

38

71

14

65

10

66

246

48

Combined 601 241

126, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016

one year, and 7 were advanced two or more years. Acceleration for these students was clearly not radical (i.e., they were not advanced five or six grade levels).

Instrumentation The existence of hundreds of instruments purporting to measure self-concept is complicated by the fact that many instruments do not have strong, theoretical bases and either completely lack or demonstrate little evidence of validity and reliability (Kohn, 1994; Marx & Winne, 1978, 1980; Wylie, 1974). However, several researchers and psychometricians have recently constructed selfconcept instruments with improved psychometric qualities, including the SelfDescription Questionnaires (SDQ; Marsh,

1988, 1990c). Hoge and Renzulli (1993) included the SDQ in their recommendations of self-concept instruments for use with gifted students. Reviews of the SDQ's psychometric properties are generally favorable (Boyle, 1994; Wylie, 1989), and comparative validity studies among several popular self-concept measures have favored the SDQ (Marsh & MacDonald Holmes, 1990). The SelfDescription Questionnaire-II (SDQII; Marsh, 1990c), the version of the SDQ recommended for use with adolescent populations, consists of 102 items comprising the 11 scales summarized in Table 2. Evidence of construct validity has been gathered through the use of multitrait-multimethod procedures and exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (Marsh, 1990c).

Table 2 Scales and Scale Descriptions for the SDOII Scale

Descriptiona

Physical ability

Skills and interest in sports and physical activities

Physical appearance

Physical attractiveness

Opposite-sex relations

Interactions with peers of the opposite sex

Same-sex relations

Interactions with peers of the same sex

Honesty-trustworthiness Truthfulness and dependability Parent

Interactions with parents

Emotional stability

Emotional well-being and freedom from psychopathology

General self

Self-worth, self-confidence, self-satisfaction

Math

Ability, enjoyment, and interest in mathematics and reasoning

Verbal

Ability, enjoyment, and interest in English and reading

General school

Ability, enjoyment, and interest in school subjects

aDescriptions taken from Marsh (1990c). Volume 13 No 2 1998, 127

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016

The coefficient alpha estimates of reliability for the SDQII scales range from .83 to .91, with a median reliability of .86, and testretest reliability coefficients range from .72 to .88 for a seven-week period (Marsh, 1990c).

Data analysis Cronbach's alpha was calculated as an estimate of the SDQII's reliability when used with gifted adolescents, and hierarchical loglinear analysis and chi square tests of indeTable 3 Internal Consistency of SDQII Scale and Factor Scores Scale Physical Ability

pendence were used to examine the relationship among demographic variables and grade-advanced status. Finally, multivariate analyses of variance was used to investigate the relationship between self concept and grade-advanced status. Effect sizes and statistical power estimates aided in the interpretation of results.

Results In this sample of gifted adolescents, alpha coefficients for the SDQII scales ranged from .83 to .93 (Table 3). These figures are similar to alpha values obtained with general ability adolescents (Marsh, 1990c) and are acceptable for both group and individual assessment purposes.

# of Gifted Norma items 8

.91

.85

Physical Appearance 8

.90

.91

Opposite Sex 8 Female respondents Male respondents

.93 .91

Same Sex 10 Female respondents Male respondents

.91 .90

Honesty

10

.86

.84

Parent

8

.88

.87

Emotional Stability

10

.85

.83

General Self

10

.87

.88

Math

10

.93

.90

Verbal

10

.86

.86

General School

10

.83

.87

aTaken from Marsh (1990c).

.90

.86

Relationship to Demographic Variables Advanced grade placement was examined in relationship to student gender, race, and grade through the use of hierarchical loglinear (i.e., multiway frequency) analysis. When working with nominal and/or ordinal variables, loglinear analyses are preferable to chi square tests of independence because the former allow the analysis of higher-order interactions. Due to small cell sizes, only students who attended the sixth through tenth grades and reported their ethnicity to be Caucasian, African American, or Hispanic were included in the analysis. The resulting sample (n=337) was sufficient for a hierarchical loglinear analysis. The hypothesis that second-order and higher interactions were zero was not rejected (Pearson x2=49.61, df=40, p=.142). Tests of partial associations indicated that only the interaction between grade-advanced status and race was statistically significant (Table 4), with a higher percentage of Caucasians with advanced status (21.4%) than either Hispanics (12.5%) or

128, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016

African Americans (10.8%). A post hoc chi square test of independence resulted in a small effect size (Cramer's V) of .125.

Differences in Self-concept Between Grade-advanced and Non-advanced Students To determine the effect of advanced standing, gender, and grade upon self-concept, a three way MANOVA was performed with grade collapsed into a two-level variable to increase power: a middle level (grades five through seven) and an upper level group (grades eight through twelve). Sample size (n=365) was reduced due to missing data. As the results indicate (Table 5), only grade and gender differences appear to be statistically significant, although both are characterized by relatively small effect sizes.

Discussion The results of this study need to be interpreted with caution: The design is causal/comparative (not experimental), and the data were obtained through student selfreport. But considering the limitations of the study, the results provide evidence that nonradical grade advancement has little impact upon the self-concepts of gifted students, confirming the findings of Kolitch and Brody, (1992) and Robinson and Janos (1986), among others. Approximately 15% of the gifted students in this sample were grade advanced, with no significant gender or grade differences in the percentage of students with advanced status. However, significantly smaller percentages of Hispanic and African American students were accelerates than were Caucasian students, although the effect size for this difference was relatively small. All interactions among grade, race, and gender with respect to advanced status were not significant.

Table 4 Tests of Partial Association for Hierarchical Loglinear Analysis Interaction

df Partial x2 p

Advanced x gender x grade x race

6

10.46

.11

Advanced x gender x grade

3

4.23

.24

Advanced x gender x race

2

.99

.61

Advanced x grade x race

6

4.13

.66

Advanced x gender

1

1.15

.28

Advanced x grade

3

4.07

.25

Advanced x race

2

9.32

.01

With respect to student selfconcept, values for Cronbach's alpha suggest that the SDQII is a reliable measure for use with gifted adolescents. Advanced standing was not directly related to self-concept scores, and all interactions involving advanced standing and grade and/or gender all had a negligible effect. Readers may note that the power of some tests involved with the MANOVA was rather low (e.g., .42 for the test of the advanced effect, .63 to .78 for the interactions involving advanced standing). However, the main effect and corresponding interactions had small effect sizes (canonical correlation ranging Volume 13 No 2 1998, 129

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016

Table 5 Results of MANOVA with SDQII Scale Scores as Dependent Variables Approx. Canon. Wilks' Exact Hypoth. Error df p Power Corr. df Lambda F

Interaction /Effect

Advanced x gender x grade Advanced x gender Advanced x grade Advanced Gender Grade

.963 .965 .955 .978 .940 .920

1.22 1.13 1.50 .752 2.00 2.73

11 11 11 11 11 11

347 347 347 347 347 347

.27 .33 .13 .69 .028 .002

.67 .63 .78 .42 .90 .98

.19 .19 .21 .15 .24 .28

from .15 to .21), which necessarily lowers power. For example, consider the main effect of advanced grade status upon the SDQII scale scores. Even with a less conservative alpha level of .05, having at least 500 students in each group (advanced /not advanced) would only raise the power to slightly more than .65 (Lipsey, 1990).

to see if a longitudinal approach identifies interactions that a cross-sectional approach (e.g., the present study) does not. In any case, a better understanding of the socioemotional development of gifted students, given the findings encountered in this study, would seem to be sufficient justification for further research.

The implication of these results for social comparison or Big Fish-Little Pond theories is significant: Accelerated students did not show a significantly lower academic or nonacademic self-concept than non-grade advanced students. The social comparison processes at work in gifted adolescents may not influence academic self-concepts because the students' self-conceptions are so wellestablished in this area by early adolescence.

In conclusion, the suggestion made by several advocates of acceleration is pertinent: Treat each child on a case-by-case basis - whether deciding whether to grade advance or assessing a child's progress after acceleration - considering the child's intellectual, academic, social, and emotional development (Hunsaker & Callahan, 1991; Van Tassel Basica, 1986). Although the results of this and other research suggest no group differences in affect, individual problems may still exist.

The results of this study warrant further investigation into the role of ethnicity and socioeconomic status upon the decision to advance a student in grade. Also, future longitudinal research should focus on whether acceleration impacts self-concept at younger ages but has little effect over time. While at least one study has investigated this hypothesis (Swiatek & Benbow, 1991), independent variables representing demographic characteristics should be included in the analyses

References Barnett, L. B., & Durden, W. G. (1993). Education patterns of academically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly. 37,161-168. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Constructing bridges between high school and college. Gifted Child Quarterly. 27,111- 113.

130, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016

Boyle, G. J. (1994). Self-Description Questionnaire II. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques. Vol 10 (pp. 632-643). Austin, TX: Pro-ed. Brody, L. E., Assouline, S. G., & Stanley, J. C. (1990). Five years of early entrants: Predicting successful achievement in college. Gifted Child Quarterly. 34,138-142. Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How effective are they for the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly. 31, 105-110.

Cornell, D. G., Callahan, C., M., & Loyd, B. H. (1991b). Socioemotional adjustment of adolescent girls enrolled in a residential acceleration program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 58-66. Cornell, D. G., Callahan, C., M., Bassin, L. E., & Ramsay, S. G. (1991). Affective development in accelerated students. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.), The academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 74-101). New York: Teachers College Press.

Brophy, I. (1985). Interactions of male and female students with male and female teachers. In L. C. Wilkinson, & C. B. Marret (Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction (pp.115-142). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Cornell, D. G., Delcourt, M. A., Goldberg, M. D., & Bland, L. C. (1992). Characteristics of elementary students entering gifted programs: The Learning Outcomes Project at the University of Virginia. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 309-331.

Brophy, J. (1986). Teaching and learning mathematics: Where research should be going. Journal for Research in Mathematics. 13, 323-346.

Cox, J., & Daniel, N. (1985). The International Baccalaureate, and concurrent enrollment. Gifted Education International, 3, 145-150.

Brounstein, P. J., Holahan, W., & Dreyden, J. (1991). Change in self-concept and attributional styles among academically gifted adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 21,198-218.

Crain, R. M., & Bracken, B. A. (1994). Age, race, and gender differences in child and adolescent self-concept: Evidence from a behavioral-acquisition, context-dependent model. School Psychology Review, 23, 496-511.

Byrne, B. M. (1984). The general/academic selfconcept nomological network: A review of construct validation research. Review of Educational Research. 54, 427-456. Confessore, G. J. (1991). What became of the kids who participated in the 1981 Johnson Early College Summer Arts Program? Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 15, 64-82. Cooley, M. R., Cornell, D. G., & Lee, C. C. (1991). Peer acceptance and self concept of Black students in a summer gifted program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 14, 166-177. Cornell, D. G. (1994). Barriers to research in gifted education. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Volume II (pp. 173-193). Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. Cornell, D. G., Callahan, C. M., & Loyd, B. H. (1991a). Personality growth of female early college entrants: A controlled, prospective study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 135-143.

Daurio, S. (1980). Educational enrichment versus acceleration. In W. George, S. Cohn, & J. Stanley (Eds.), Educating the Gifted: Acceleration and enrichment (pp. 13-63). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Eccles, J. S., & Blumfield, P. (1985). Classroom experiences and student gender: Are there differences and do they matter? In L. C. Wilkinson, & C. B. Marret (Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction (pp. 79-114). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Edlind, E. P. (1988). Attitudes of superintendents, teachers, and parents toward program formats designed for gifted students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 1407A . Feldhusen, J. F. (1991). Basic issues and approaches in identifying and educating gifted youth.

Bulletin of the Hong Kong Psychological Society, 26, 28-46.

Volume 13 No 2 1998, 131

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016

Feldhusen, J. F., Proctor, T. B., & Black, K. N. (1986). Guidelines for grade advancement of precocious children. Roeper Review, 9, 25-27.

Janos, P. M. (1987). A fifty-year follow-up of Terman's youngest college students and IQ matched agemates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 55-58.

Feldhusen, J. F., Sayler, M. F., Nielsen, M. E., & Kolloff, P. B. (1990). Self-concepts of gifted children in enrichment programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 380-387.

Janos, P. M., Robinson, N. M., Carter C., Chapel, A., Cufley, R., Curland, M., Daily, M., Guilland, M., Heinzig, M., Kehl, H., Lu, S., Sherry, D., Stoloff, J., & Wise, A. (1988). A cross-sectional developmental study of the social relations of students who enter college early. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 210-215.

Fennema, E., & Petersen, P. L. (1985). Autonomous learning behavior: A possible explanation of gender-related differences in mathematics. In L. C. Wilkinson & C. B. Marret (Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction (pp. 79114). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations. 7, 117-140. Goldring, E. G. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom organizational frameworks for gifted students. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 313-326. Gross, M. U. (1992). The use of radical acceleration in cases of extreme intellectual precocity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 91-99. Ham, S., & Shaughnessy, M. F. (1992). Personality and scientific promise. Psychological Reports, 70, 971-975. Harter, S. (1986). Processes underlying the construction, maintenance, and enhancement of the self-concept in children. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self. Vol 3 (pp. 137-181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hoge, R. D., & McScheffrey, R. (1991). An investigation of self-concept in gifted children. Exceptional Children, 57, 238-245. Hoge, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self concept. Review of Educational Research, 63, 449-465. Hunsaker, S. L., & Callahan, C. M. (1991). Student assessment and evaluation. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.), The academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 207-222). New York: Teachers College Press.

Jones, E. D., & Southern, W. T. (1991). Objections to early entrance and grade skipping. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.), The academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 51-73). New York: Teachers College Press. Jones, E. D., & Southern, W. T. (1992). Programming, grouping, and acceleration in rural school districts: A survey of attitudes and practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 112-117. Kelly, K. R., & Jordan, L. K. (1990). Effects of academic achievement and gender on academic and social self-concept: A replication study. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 173-177. Kent, S. D. (1993). The effects of acceleration on the social and emotional development of gifted elementary students: A meta-analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 419A. Kohn, A. (1994). The truth about self-esteem. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 272-283. Kolitch, E. R., & Brody, L. E. (1992). Mathematics acceleration of highly talented students: An evaluation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 78-86. Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415-428. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L.C. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54, 409425. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.

132, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016

Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lupkowski, A. E., Whitmore, M., & Ramsay, A. (1992). The impact of early entrance to college on self-esteem: A preliminary study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 87-90.

Self-Description Questionnaire-I: Manual and research monograph.

Marsh, H. W. (1988).

San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Marsh, H. W. (1989a). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of self-concept: Preadolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 417-430. Marsh, H. W. (1989b). Sex differences in the development of verbal and mathematics constructs: The High School and Beyond Study. American Educational Research Journal. 26, 191-225. Marsh, H. W. (1990b). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77-172. Marsh, H. W. (1990c). Self-Description Questionnaire-II: Manual. Cambellton, NSW, Australia: University of Western Sydney, Macarthur. Marsh, H. W. (1990d). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 623-636. Marsh, H. W. (1992). Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 35-42. Marsh, H. W. (1993b). The multidimensional structure of academic self-concept: Invariance over gender and age. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 841-860. Marsh, H. W. (1994). Using the National Longitudinal Study of 1988 to evaluate theoretical models of self-concept: The Self-Description Questionnaire. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 439-456.

Marsh, H. W., Barnes, J., Cairns, L., & Tidman, M. (1984). Self-Description Questionnaire: Age and sex effects in the structure and level of self-concept for preadolescent children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 940-956. Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1988). A multifaceted academic self concept: Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 366-380. Marsh, H. W., Chessor, D., Craven, R., & Roche, L. (1995). The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American Education Research Journal, 32, 285-319. Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. (1991). Self-concepts of young children 5 to 8 years of age: Measurement and multidimensional structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 377-392. Marsh, H.W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of selfconcept: First and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562-582. Marsh, H. W., & MacDonald Holmes, I. W. (1990). Multidimensional self-concepts: Construct validation of responses by children. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 89-117. Marsh, H. W., Parker, J., & Barnes, J. (1985). Multidimensional adolescent self concepts: Their relationship to age, sex, and academic measures. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 422-444. Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107-123. Marsh, H. W., & Smith, I. D. (1987). Multidimensional self-concepts: An application of confirmatory factor analysis. Australian Journal of Psychology, 39, 61-77. Marx, R. W., & Winne, P. H. (1978). Construct interpretations of three self-concept inventories. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 99-109.

Volume 13 No 2 1998, 133

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016

Marx, R. W., & Winne, P. H. (1980). Self-concept validation research: Some current complexities. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 13, 72-82. Mullis, A. K., Mullis, R L., & Normandin, D. (1992). Cross-sectional and longitudinal comparisons of adolescent self-esteem. Adolescence, 27, 51-61.

Rimm, S. B., & Lovance, K. J. (1992). The use of subject and grade skipping for the prevention and reversal of underachievement. Gifted Child Quarterly. 36, 100-105. Robinson, N. M., & Janos, P. M. (1986). Psychological adjustment in a college-level program of marked academic acceleration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 15 (1), 51-60.

Noble, K. D., & Drummond, J. E. (1992). But what about the prom? Students' perceptions of early college entrance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 106111.

Rogers, K. B. (1993). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers. Roeper Review. 16, 8-12.

Noble, K. D., Robinson, N. M., & Gunderson, S. A. (1993). All rivers lead to the sea: A follow-up study of gifted young adults. Roeper Review, 15, 124-130.

Rogers, K. B. (1991). A best evidence synthesis of the research on types of accelerative programs for gifted students. Dissertation Abstracts International. 52, 796A.

Osborne, W. L., & LeGette, H. R. (1982). Sex, race, grade level, and social class differences in selfconcept. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 14, 195-201.

Rogers, K. B., & Kimpston, R. D. (1992). Acceleration: What we do vs. what we know. Educational Leadership. 50 (2), 58-61.

Paulus, P. (1984). Acceleration: More than grade skipping. Roeper Review, 7, 98-100. Proctor, T. B., Black, K. N., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1986). Early admission of selected children to elementary school: A review of the research literature. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 70-76. Proctor, T. B., Feldhusen, J. E, & Black, K. N. (1988). Guidelines for early admission to elementary school. Psychology in the Schools, 25, 41-43. Pyryt, M. C., & Mendaglio, S. (1994). The multidimensional self-concept: A comparison of gifted and average-ability adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 17, 299-305. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1994). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model. Gifted Child Quarterly. 38, 7-20. Richardson, T. M., & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Longterm effects of acceleration on the social-emotional adjustment of mathematically precocious youths. Journal of Educational Psychology. 82, 464-470.

Sayler, M. F., & Brookshire, W. K. (1993). Social, emotional, and behavioral adjustment of accelerated students, students in gifted classes, and regular students in eighth grade. Gifted Child Quarterly. 37, 150-154. Shore, B., Cornell, D., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York: Teachers College Press. Sisk, D. A. (1988). The bored and disinterested gifted child: Going through school lockstep. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 5-18. Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (1991). Academic acceleration: Background and issues. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.), The academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 1-28). New York: Teachers College Press. Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Fiscus, E. D. (1989). Practitioner objections to the academic acceleration of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 29-35. Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Stanley, J. C. (1993). Acceleration and enrichment: The context and development of program options. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.),

134, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016

International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 387 409). New York: Pergamon Press.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). Acceleration. In C. J. Maker (Ed.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Pro-Ed.

Swiatek, M. A. (1993). A decade of longitudinal research on academic acceleration through the study of mathematically precocious youth. Roeper Review, 15, 120-124.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Educational decision making on acceleration and grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 68-72.

Swiatek, M. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). Ten-year longitudinal follow-up of ability matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 528-538.

Vaughn, V. L., Feldhusen, J. F., & Asher, J. W. (1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 92-98.

Swiatek, M. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1992). Nonintellectual correlates of satisfaction with acceleration: A longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 699-723

Wylie, R. C. (1974). The self-concept. Vol. 1: A review of methodological considerations and measuring instruments (rev. ed.). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Thomas, T. A. (1989). Acceleration for the academically talented: A follow-up of the Academic Talent Search Class of 1984. (ERIC Document

Wylie, R. C. (1989). Measures of self-concept. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Reproduction Service No. ED 307 303)

Yong, F. L. (1994). Self-concepts, locus of control, and Machiavellianism of ethnically diverse middle school students who are gifted. Roeper Review, 16, 192-194.

Thomas, T. A. (1993). The achievement and social adjust-

ment of accelerated students: The impact of academic talent search after seven years. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 368 146) Thorkildsen, T. A. (1993). Those who can, tutor: High-ability students' conceptions of fair ways to organize learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 182-190.

Yong, F. L., & McIntyre, J. D. (1991). Comparison of sell-concepts of students identified as gifted and regular students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 443-446.

Townsend, M. A., & Patrick, H. (1993). Academic and psychosocial apprehensions of teachers and teacher trainees toward the educational acceleration of gifted children. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 28, 29-41.

Volume 13 No 2 1998, 135

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY on March 7, 2016