STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF GROUPING BASED ON ABILITY

Nicole H. Seid

A Thesis Submitted to the

University of North Carolina Wilmington in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Education

Watson School of Education

University of North Carolina Wilmington

2010

Approved by

Advisory Committee

Dr. Edward Caropreso Ms. Lauren Leinbach

Dr. Susan Catapano

Chair

Accepted by

Dean, Graduate School

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ iii

DEDICATION ........................................................................................................................ iv

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... v

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 3

Grouping ...................................................................................................................... 6

Instruments ................................................................................................................... 8

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 11

Participants ................................................................................................................. 11

Setting ........................................................................................................................ 11

Placement in School ................................................................................................... 12

Variables/Measures .................................................................................................... 12

Procedure ................................................................................................................... 14

RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 17

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 22

Implications................................................................................................................ 23

Suggestions for Future Research ............................................................................... 24

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 25

APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................ 29

iii

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to see how high achieving students perceived grouping

practices. The participants in this study attend a special school for high ability students. Through

the use of the Draw A Person Intellectual Ability Test for Children, Adolescents, and Adults

(DAP:IQ), the Overexcitabilities Questionnaire: Two, student questionnaires, and teacher

questionnaires I was able to see the differences in student perceptions of groupings based on

ability.

iv

DEDICATION

I want to thank my wonderful parents, Rickie and Robert Seid. They inspire me to live

my dreams, and without them I would not have made it this far. Their constant encouragement

keeps me going.

With a special thanks to Dr. Caropreso for believing in me, even when I did not believe

in myself.

v

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

1. Demographics of Participants ............................................................................................ 11

2. Student Responses to Question #4 ..................................................................................... 17

3. Breakdown of Student Responses and Categories ............................................................. 18

4. Number of Individuals per Group with Respect to Ability................................................ 21

INTRODUCTION

Research has shown that all students benefit from higher level instruction, not just the

high achievers (Rogers, 2007). Knowing this, I read through the literature which described the

best methods for teaching students of all ability levels, with my special interest finding a home in

gifted education. I am extremely fascinated in how to effectively teach towards the most desired

learning outcome. I feel, in order to do this, the educator must be aware of how the students think

and feel so that they are more able to convey information in a way which is understandable to the

learner.

In this study, a population of high ability students in a special school answered questions

about their perceptions of grouping practices. From these questions, I was able to determine if

the students were aware they were being placed in groups and which grouping situation did they

feel they learned best.

Background

The motivation for choosing this study came from my previous research about the social

and emotional needs of gifted children. I participated in a graduate level course which described

shortcomings in the literature about these issues. During this class, I studied children in a

heterogeneous learning environment and asked them questions pertaining to their social and

emotional needs. I questioned them about who they turn to for guidance, how they felt when they

were in traditional classrooms with typical children, and how they preferred to learn? The

students’ answers revealed they preferred to be exclusively placed in the gifted classroom for

various reasons. They indicated that it was a more comfortable environment for them to learn in

for an assortment of reasons. These answers intrigued me to find out if high achieving students,

who were in an environment specially designed for them, felt the same way. I found a local

2

school which offered this type of environment for high achieving learners, and was curious about

their perceptions on how they were being grouped. This lead me to my research question: What

are the differences in student perceptions of grouping based on ability?

Terms

The term high ability is used throughout this paper. For the purposes of this study the

phrase high ability refers to students who are able (to) “learn more rapidly, to work at advanced

levels in the subject matter, and to focus on higher level conceptual content” (Feldhusen &

Moon, 1992, p. 63)

Overexcitability is used to describe how a person responds to their environment and

environmental stimuli. When a person is “super stimulated” their reaction to stimuli is more

intense and lasts longer than a typical person (Piechowski, 1999, p. 325).

Ability grouping is used in this study to describe grouping students based on their

capability to learn.

Limitations

There were two main limitations to this study. The first was the small population; this

sample included only 38 students.

Due to the limited access to this group of students, gender was not taken into

consideration. This occurred for two reasons; the first being that the students remained

anonymous and therefore were not asked to identify their gender on the instrument. The second

reason it was excluded was ability level was being examined in this study, not gender. The

researcher did not find it necessary to include this information because there is no relevant

literature to support the need for ability grouping based on gender.

3

LITERATURE REVIEW

What is giftedness? According to the National Association for Gifted Children’s (NAGC)

website giftedness is:

Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such

as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and

who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully

develop those capabilities. (National Association for Gifted Children, 2008)

Gifted and high achievers look the same on the outside. You have to take a closer look at how

the individual functions to determine if a child is gifted. According to Kroninger (n.d), “…gifted

students differ from their classmates in the interests they hold, the speed at which they learn, and

the depth of their understanding” (p. 4). In 1989, Szabos (as cited in Kingore, 2004) observed,

compared, and then differentiated these two categories of learners. She said that the bright child

learns with ease; the gifted child already knows. A bright child enjoys the company of age peers;

a gifted child prefers the company of intellectual peers. A bright child is receptive; a gifted child

is intense. A bright child is pleased with learning; a gifted child is self-critical. A bright child

performs at the top of the group; a gifted child is beyond the group. A bright child is interested; a

gifted child is curious. A bright learner memorizes well; a gifted learner guesses and infers well.

Traditionally, a persons’ Intelligence Quotient (IQ) defines giftedness. The NAGC website

defines IQ as, “A numerical representation of intelligence. IQ is derived from dividing mental

age (result from an intelligence test) by the chronological age times 100. Traditionally, an

average IQ is considered to be 100” (National Association for Gifted Children, 2008).

Giftedness is not just a number derived from a standardized test. As presented by Gardner and

Hatch (1989), intelligence can be displayed in multiple ways; logical-mathematical, special,

4

linguistic, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. But, intelligence can help

with the identification of gifted learners. The NAGC website defines intelligence as:

The ability to learn, reason and problem solve. Debate revolves around the nature of

intelligence as to whether it is an innate quality or something that is developed as a result of

interacting with the environment. Many researchers believe that it is a combination of the

two. (National Association for Gifted Children, 2008)

There are many different types of instruments which are used to measure intelligence.

Intelligence tests were “designed to determine the relative mental capacity of a person”

(Intelligence tests, 2010). In addition to intelligence, there are other ways to describe gifted

learners. The construct of overexcitability (OE) was introduced by Dabrowski in 1938, when he

studied how a person responds to their environment and environmental stimuli. OE is a

translation of the Polish term nadpobudliwosc, which means “the capacity to be super

stimulated” (Piechowski, 1999, p. 325). This term was chosen to suggest that the stimulation is

more intense and lasts longer than the norm. Dabrowski defined the term OE by using the

following characteristics:

(a)Reaction exceeds the stimulus, (b) The reaction lasts much longer than the average, (c) The

reaction is often not related to the stimulus, (d) The emotional experience is promptly relayed

to the sympathetic nervous system (increased heartbeat, blushing, trembling, perspiring,

headaches). (Piechowski, 1999, p.326)

Dabrowski introduced OEs as types of increased psychic excitability. He used OEs to describe

the behavior he witnessed while observing gifted and creative individuals. He came up with five

types of OEs: psychomotor, sensual, imaginational, intellectual, and emotional. Typically, gifted

children tend to express multiple intensities, but one intensity is often dominating (Piechowski,

5

1999). Piechowski and Colangelo (as cited in Rinn, Mendaglio, Rudasill, & McQueen, 2010)

reported that gifted adolescents and adults typically scored higher in the “intellectual, emotional,

and imaginational OEs” (p. 4).

The characteristics which define psychomotor overexcitability are: rapid speech,

impulsive behavior, competitiveness, compulsive talking, compulsive organizing, nervous habits

and tics, preference for fast action and sports, physical expression of emotions, and sleeplessness

(Piechowski, 1999, p. 327-328). The main characteristic of the psychomotor intensity can be

summarized as a surplus of energy. Children with a dominant psychomotor overexcitability are

often misdiagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) since the

characteristics are similar. According to Ackerman (as cited in Tieso, 2007), psychomotor is the

best predictor of giftedness (1997). Bouchard (2004) reported that psychomotor OE scores

predicted giftedness, in a sample of elementary students, 76% of the time. Gifted students tended

to have significantly lower psychomotor scores than regular students (Bouchard, 2004).

The distinguishing trait of a dominant sensual OE is heightened awareness of all five

senses: sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing, there is also a strong appreciation for beauty –

whether in writing, music, art or nature. In addition some people have been observed to have

sensitivities to smell, taste, or even texture of certain foods and fabrics (Piechowski, 1999, p.

328-329).

Free play of the imagination is the primary sign of the imaginational intensity. People

who exhibit this OE have vivid imaginations which can cause them to dream any possibility, in

any situation, which they could perceive as reality. Imaginary friends, vivid dreams, detailed

visualizations, analogies, and a love of fantasy, poetry, music, and drama might be present with

this OE (Piechowski, 1999, p. 330).

6

The intellectual OE is the one most widely recognized in gifted people. It is characterized

by activities of the mind, thought and thinking about thinking. People who show evidence of this

intensity seem to demonstrate a lot of questioning; they are driven by their search for

understanding and truth. They are deeply curious, have a love of knowledge, learning, and

problem solving, they think independently, theoretically, and analytically (Piechowski, 1999, p.

329).

Exceptional emotional sensitivity is the primary sign of the emotional OE. Sometimes

people with a strong emotional OE are mistaken for people who have bipolar disorder, or another

emotional or behavior disorder, because they have such a wide range of emotions. These people

show signs of anxiety, feelings of guilt and sense of responsibility, inadequacy or inferiority;

they may be timid or shy; prefer to be alone. Their ability to empathize with others is great. They

have a heightened sense of what is right and wrong. Their memory is linked with their feelings.

These people need security which may lead to problems adjusting to any new environments, and

could lead to depression. They tend to have physical responses to emotion, an example of which

is developing a stomach ache because they are anxious (Piechowski, 1999, p. 331).

Grouping

Knowing the variance in characteristics of giftedness should help teachers take into

consideration the perceived intelligence and presence of OEs in their gifted and high achieving

students. These students require higher level thinking skills in order to continue to flourish

(Holloway, 2001). Although there is more than one way to facilitate learners, an important

strategy to maximize learning potential for gifted and high achieving students is grouping

(Kutnick and Kington, 2005, p.523). The term grouping encompasses any assemblage of people

from working alone to utilizing whole class instruction (Baines, Blatchford, & Kutnick, 2003,

7

p.10). In order for any grouping strategies to be effective, learning outcomes must be taken into

consideration when groups are being composed (Baines, et al., 2003, p.11; Kutnick, Blatchford,

& Baines, 2002, p.204) and groups must remain flexible (Feldhusen and Moon, 1992, p.63 and

65; Pigford, 1990, p. 262). Studies have shown that cognitive development can be improved

when children work collaboratively, rather than alone because the learning is facilitated by social

interaction (Blatchford, Kutnick, Baines, & Galton, 2005; Kutnick and Kington, 2005, p. 523;

525; p. 154; Pigford, 1990, p.261).

Various types of grouping strategies can be utilized to maximize learning; depending on

the best rational situation and the learning outcomes to be achieved by grouping strategy being

used (Blatchford, et al., 2003, p. 154; Holloway, 2001, p. 85; Rogers, 2002, p. 105; Pigford,

1990, p. 261). Grouping high achieving and gifted students in homogeneous ability groups is the

most effective form of grouping to achieve desired learning outcomes (Rogers, 2007; Fiedler,

Lange, & Winebrenner, 2004; Shields, 2002; Feldhusen and Moon,1992; Allen, 1991; Gamoran

& Berends, 1987; and Oakes, 1986). Rogers (2002) concluded from her synthesis of 13 studies

that “sustained periods of instruction in like-ability groups for students who are gifted and

talented" (p. 103) is the best way to support these learners. Since students of high ability are able

to “learn more rapidly, to work at advanced levels in the subject matter, and to focus on higher

level conceptual content” (Feldhusen & Moon, 1992, p. 63) it would make sense for these

students to be placed in groups with others of their same ability so that their ideas can be met by

other students’ questions who are functioning on similar intellectual levels. Feldhusen & Moon

(2002) provide an excellent analogy: “People who have worked in schools…would find it

difficult to envision heterogeneous varsity basketball, football, and baseball teams, or a

heterogeneous band comprised of beginning, intermediate, and advanced musicians, or a

8

heterogeneous calculus for all who wish to enroll” (p. 63). Simply put, those of similar needs

should congregate in groups; birds of a feather flock together.

Rogers (2007) concludes, from her meta analysis, she has found “positive academic

effects of such options as full-time ability grouping providing all academic learning for gifted

learners within a self-contained setting such as a special school or full time gifted program”

(p. 389). She reports that gifted students, in a full time program show at least a third of an

academic year additional growth when compared with students in heterogeneous classrooms

(2007, p. 389).

Full time ability grouping is not only beneficial for high achieving and gifted students,

Holloway (2001) found from two studies that “average, to below average students, of all races,

can achieve academic success and prosper in a more rigorous academic environment” (p. 84). All

students are capable of growth when properly challenged.

Instruments

Traditionally, IQ test measure giftedness. According to the NAGC website, the most widely

used IQ tests are the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Third Edition (WISC-III) and the

Stanford Binet Intelligence Test - Fourth Edition (SB-IV) (Callahan & Eichner, n.d.). Although

IQ may be the most common, it is not the only way to determine giftedness; other assessments

have been created which evaluate the different levels and types of intelligence.

In 1926, Goodenough introduced the Draw-a-Man test which establishes the concept of

Human Figure Drawings (HFD) being used as a developmental approach (Koppitz, 1968). She

found through her studies, in concurrence with those of Schuten (1907) and Lobsien (1905), that

as children mature cognitively, they are able to represent through drawings more realistic

representations of humans because their thought processes are developing. Goodenough (1926)

9

found that as the child’s understanding of the immediate environment matures, their drawings

become more detailed, complete, and realistic (p. 4).

One of those assessments is the Draw A Person Intellectual Ability Test for Children,

Adolescents, and Adults (DAP:IQ) (See Appendix A). The DAP:IQ is an:

Objective scoring system applied to standardized method for obtaining a human figure

drawing from which (an) IQ estimate is derived. Test is normed for ages 4 year 0 month 0 day

through 89 years 11 months 30 days on a population proportionate sample of 2,295 from

across the United States (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004, p.1)

The DAP:IQ should not be used exclusively to determine intelligence, instead it should be used

as a “piece to the puzzle” when determining intellectual ability (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004,

p.v). The DAP:IQ reflects cognitive ability but is not a general measure of intelligence nor is it a

complete measure of intelligence. This test does not assess verbal abilities, which are important

for a complete assessment of intellectual function, and should not be substituted for a more

complete evaluation when needed. The DAP:IQ should be utilized as an additional source of

information regarding examinees levels of cognitive function which support other measures

(Reynolds & Hickman, 2004, p.12).

Another type of alternative assessment used in helping to identify giftedness measures

overexcitabilities. This assessment is called The Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two (OEQII)

(Falk, Lind, Miller, Piechowski, & Silverman, 1999) (See Appendix A). This assessment was

developed to measure the intensity levels of the five OEs. Each OE is measured independently

through 50 Likert-type items. The statements on the OEQII ask the responder to “respond on the

basis of what you are like now, not how you would like to be or how you think you should be”

(Falk, et al., 1999, p. 8). This might be difficult for children to do because they may not be

10

mature enough to be fully aware of how they actually are, instead of how they perceive

themselves (Bouchard, 2004). The statements describe each OE. For example, “I like to

daydream” (Falk, et al., 1999, p. 7) is an example of the imaginational OE (Falk, et al., 1999, p.

6); “I am a competitive person” (Falk, et al., 1999, p. 8) is an example of the psychomotor OE

(Falk, et al., 1999, p. 6); “I am moved by the beauty in nature” (Falk, et al., 1999, p. 9) is an

example of the sensual OE (Falk, et al., 1999, p. 6). “I am an independent thinker” (Falk, et al.,

1999, p. 8) is an example of the intellectual OE (Falk, et al., 1999, p. 6); and “I am so happy that

I want to laugh and cry at the same time” (Falk, et al, 1999, p. 8) is an example of the emotional

OE (Falk, et al, 1999, p. 6).

METHODOLOGY

The aim of this study was to see how high achieving students perceive grouping

strategies in their classrooms and how they preferred to be grouped.

Participants

There were 19 male and 19 female students (38) in the fourth through eighth grades who

participated in this study; they ranged in age from nine to fourteen years old (see Table 1 for

breakdown of demographics).

Table 1 Demographics of Participants

Age (yrs) Grade # of

Students

# of Males

(%)

# of

Females

(%)

# of White

(%)

# of Non-

White (%)

9 4th

2 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2 (100%) 0

10 5th

4 1 (25%) 3 (75%) 4 (100%) 0

11-12 6th

14 6 (43%) 8 (57%) 14 (100%) 0

12-13 7th

11 5 (45%) 6 (54%) 11 (100%) 0

13-14 8th

7 6 (86%) 1 (14%) 6 (86%) 1 (14 %)

Setting

The site, which was founded in 1997 by local parents and teachers who wanted more

diversity in school choice, is a private middle school in Wilmington, North Carolina. The

school’s goal is to provide “opportunities that will result in the development of self-direction,

personal responsibility and life-long learning. The philosophy at the school is to provide each

student with an educational environment which is focused around the individual students needs.

The educators at the school hold high expectations for all students by actively involving them in

the learning process and they strive to help each student develop self-discipline and motivation.

The goal of this school is: “in partnership with supportive families, this school offers a

challenging and nurturing environment for students of academic and personal promise. This

12

school fosters the abilities, imagination and motivation of each student so that he or she may

grow academically and personally” (Wilmington Academy of Arts and Sciences, n.d.).

Placement in School

In order to be eligible to attend this school, students must take the Iowa Test of Basic

Skills (ITBS) and/or have high teacher recommendations from a previously attended learning

institution. The schools population mainly consists of children who score 95% or higher on the

ITBS, with exceptions made for students based on outstanding teacher recommendations. The

school considers, but is not limited to, the students’ ITBS math, language arts, and reading test

scores for acceptance. Students are ability grouped for math, based on the ITBS scores and

teacher recommendations (L.Leinbach, personal communication, February 18, 2010). Students

are grade grouped for language arts, due to the age appropriateness of the literature. Students are

heterogeneously mixed, by grade and ability, in science and social studies classes. The school

rotates through each grade level curriculum from the North Carolina Standard Course of Study,

every three years, in these subjects (T. Capuano-Deese, personal communication, January 8,

2010).

Variables/Measures

There were four measures used in this study. DAP:IQ; OEQII; Student Survey; and

Teacher Survey.

The schools’ Board of Directors wanted their students to remain anonymous; therefore

student scores on the ITBS were not available. Best practice for identification would require

multiple measures, so the DAP:IQ should not be used alone to determine intelligence levels,

classroom teachers were asked to rank their students, by grade level, by their perceived

13

intelligence. The DAP:IQ was administered to gain perspective on the students’ ability levels.

According to the DAP:IQ Examiners Manual (2004):

100% of the alphas for the DAP:IQ standard scores reach at least .74, with the majority above

.80, a value often recommended for individually administered tests as a threshold level for

decision making about individuals. The median alpha reliability across all ages is .82. The

mean alpha is also .82….Overall these values indicate very good reliability, especially

considering the brevity of the task and its simple, rapid scoring system. (Reynolds &

Hickman, 2004, p. 20)

The OEQII was administered to students to gauge how the students responded to

environmental stimuli. Since the literature shows that gifted children often exhibit multiple and

high levels of OEs, I wanted to examine the correlations between the DAP:IQ scores, student

OEs and grouping preferences.

Students were given the student survey which consisted of seven items asking them to

identify and express attitudes about prior school experiences, their attitudes about their current

school, how they are grouped, which group they like the best, and to describe a typical

experience when they are grouped. I created this survey with the purpose of being able to

determine student perceptions of how they are grouped. I personally administered the survey to

the students and provided clarifying comments when necessary.

Teachers were given the Teacher Survey, consisting of three questions, asking which

grouping strategies they utilized in their classes, why they used these specific strategies, and if

they felt those grouping strategies were effective. I created the survey as to be informed about

how the teachers employed grouping strategies in their classrooms. I allowed the teachers three

weeks to complete the survey.

14

Procedure

The study began, in January of 2010. After students’ were anonymously coded, four

groups of students came to into the room, by grades. I was able to assess all of the groups in a

time frame of 50 minutes per grade level. When students first came into the classroom, they were

asked to sign assent forms if they wish to participate in the study.

Students’ were given the instructions from the DAP:IQ Examiners Manual on how to

complete the assessment. After being instructed to include their identification letter and number

and date of birth on the top of their response sheet, they were told:

I want you to draw a picture of yourself. Be sure to draw your whole body, not just your head,

and draw how you look from the front, not from the side. Do not draw a cartoon or stick

figure. Draw the very best picture of yourself that you can. Take your time and work

carefully. Go ahead. (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004, p. 5)

The students were allowed as much time as needed to complete the drawing. They were

instructed to keep their eyes on their own paper, and not to talk to their peers. Most of the

students took under ten minutes to complete their self portrait. I walked around the room during

the assessment to make sure students were following directions.

After the DAP:IQ was completed, the OEQII was administered to the students. They

were asked to include their identification number on the top of the OEQII. The directions were

written on the OEQII as follows:

Please rate how much each statement fits you. Respond on the basis of what you are like now,

not how you would like to be or how you think you should be. Circle the number under the

statement that most accurately reflects the way you see yourself. (Falk, et al., 1999, p. 8)

15

Students asked to me to clarify a few of the statements on the OEQII, but generally had no

difficulties completing the inventory.

After the students completed the OEQII, they were asked to complete the student

questionnaire. The students were asked to write their identification number and letter on the top

of the answer sheet, and then were instructed to answer the questionnaire. After the students

completed the form, they were allowed to go to their next class.

I visited the school site, at a later time, to observe the teaching practices and student

behavior. After each class session, I spoke with the teachers to gain insight into their typical

teaching practices.

The teachers took their questionnaire at a different time than the students. The teachers

also were instructed to not include their name and there was no code was used to identify them.

I was trained to score the DAP:IQ in the following way: an expert rater and I conducted

our own interrater reliability on a stratified random sample. It had 138 judgments over six

protocols. We had approximately .96 agreement across the sample of 138 judgments (133/138).

We came to this level of reliability by discussing our disagreements and negotiating our scores.

After being trained using samples of the DAP:IQ, I scored the students drawings using the

DAP:IQ Examiners Manual as a guide (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004) (see Appendix A) . The

scores were recorded using Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet.

The DAP:IQ was normed on a sample of 2,295 individuals, which closely reflected the

U.S. Census Bureau demographic characteristics (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004). The “norms for

the DAP:IQ are presented in terms of standard scores having a mean of 00 and a standard

deviation of 15” (Reynolds & Hickman, 2004, p. 14). The Examiners Manual (2004) states the

overall interscorer reliability of the DAP:IQ, from two studies, is .95 and .91 (p. 22).

16

The OEQII was scored by using the guide provided by Falk, et al (1999) (see Appendix

A), and the scores were recorded using a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet. The OEQII internal

reliability was determined using Cronbach’s alpha. “The alpha coefficients for the five factors

are: Psychomotor = .86, Sensual = .89, Imaginational = .85, Intellectual = .89, and Emotional -

.84” (Falk, et al., 1999, p. 3). “An alpha above .80 is interpreted as a high scale reliability” (Falk,

et al., 1999, p. 3).

A multiple methods approach, both qualitative and quantitative, was used in this study.

The qualitative portion of this study was represented through the student surveys. The student

responses are documented and summarized in the results section (see Tables 2, 3, and 4).

Quantitatively, the DAP was used to establish the levels of the independent variable. It was used

to organize and structure the data so that student characteristics could be explained in terms of

patterns and relationships. The independent variable, ability, was used to categorize students

based on ability. The OEQII provided a dependent variable allowing an examination of the

relationship between ability and overexcitability.

RESULTS

I conducted this study to answer the research question: What are the differences in

student perceptions of grouping based on ability? The following three tables report the results.

Table 2 presents data from the Student Survey number 4 pertaining to this research

questions 76.3% of students (29 of 38) responded yes: in their classrooms they are placed into

groups.

Table 2 Student Responses to Question #4

Question #4: In your classroom, are you placed in groups?

Response Number of Students (%)

Yes 29 (76%)

No 3 (.08%)

Yes-Sometimes 2 (.05%)

Yes/No 2 (.05%)

Yes, most of the time, some

depending on what we do

1 (.03%)

Somewhat 1 (.03%)

Questions 5 and 6 asked the students how they are grouped and in which grouping they

believe learn best. From the student answers, I categorized the student responses into eight

categories: “big groups”, “individual”, “pairs”, “friends”, “least distracting”, “alone and with

others”, “small groups”, “and no/unclear response” (see Table 3).

18

Table 3 Breakdown of Student Responses and Categories

In Table 3, the number of individuals represents how many students’ responded they

prefer that type of grouping. The number of statements represents the amount of answers the

students in the group provided. For example, student A5 responded, “I like working in groups

and by myself because you can come up with the ideas on your own or you can take into

consideration other people’s ideas and maybe use them for your own later.” This student gave

two explanations as to why they like working both in groups and alone. Therefore, their response

counted as two statements.

I took students’ responses about their experiences and created eight groups. Students in

the first group “, big groups,” characterized their experiences as being the best for them. The

students characterized these groups by stating why they learn best in “big groups”; for example,

the students said “bigger groups”; “co-ed and big”, “because it’s easy to work with them and you

get a lot of good ideas”; “probably with our tables because there are other people to help explain

Categories Number of

Individuals

Number of Statements Examples

Big Groups 5 7 Get to interact with

everybody

Individual 6 6 Don’t have to stop

and explain

Pairs 6 10 Can concentrate better

Friends 5 5 Can have fun while

learning

Least Distracting 2 2 Sometimes distracted

by friends

Both Alone and With

Others

2 4 Can come up with

own ideas, but still get

help when needed

Small Groups 3 3 Less distracted

No/Unclear Response 9 8 I learned in all the

groups

19

and work with”; “literature”, “because you interact with everybody and read together and

answers”; and “groups, because you share your ideas with other people.”

Students in the second group, “individual”, characterized their experiences as being the

best for them; for example, the students’ said “I learn best when I work alone”, “because then it

is my job to figure everything out”; “none, because I can work with people I don’t hate”;

“probably independent”, “because I get more done”; “by myself, you have to get all the

information”; “when I work alone I don’t have to stop and explain what I’m thinking about to the

other people. If I work with my friends though, they understand me more”; and “individually,

because I can use my own ideas and theories.”

Students in the third group, “pairs”, characterized their experiences as being the best for

them; for example the students’ said, “I like to work in partners so I can concentrate better than if

it were in a large group”; “Pairs cause SOMETIMES it’s people who I like”; “Partners, but only

if you get to choose the one you’re with because then you can choose someone who thinks the

same as you do”; “When I sit with just one person, because I can focus more, and there is less

goofing off”; “Doubles, because you really have to work together”; “Pairs, because they’re aren’t

so many people that it is confusing but enough to share your ideas equal”; “Partners that we get

to choose because it’s our friends and I can have fun while learning.”

Students in the fourth group, “friends”, characterized their experiences as being best for

them; for example the students’ said, “with friends because you tend to know what their opinion

of an answer could be”; “Being with friends”; “Friends”; and “with my friends”.

Students in the fifth group, “least distracting”, as being the best for them; for example

one student said, “I learn best in the groups I’m in with the least distracting people.”

20

Students in the sixth group, “alone and with others”, express their preferred experiences;

for example the students’ said, “I like working in groups and by myself because you can come up

with the ideas on your own or you can take into consideration other people’s ideas and maybe

use them for your own later”; and “Desk group you don’t have to work with them but one may

get help from them. I am an independent person”.

Students in the seventh group, “small groups”, express their preferred experiences; for

example the students’ said, “I learn the most in the smaller groups because it is easier to agree on

something”; “The one with the least amount of members so I do work and learn while doing

that”; and “a group of 3, the smallest group, also, the group with the least amount of talkers so

I’m not distracted.”

The eighth group, “no/unclear response”, is presented by various responses about in

which group they learn best; for example the students said, “Pre-algebra, because the teacher

teaches us”; “I think I do best in math because it is my easiest subject”; “S.S. because I like it the

best”; “Probably the ones where she picks sticks because you don’t know what you work with,

so you do your best. You don’t pick”; “Grades, because you are with people who are in your

grade. By tables you don’t always know what the older kids know”; and “I learned in all the

groups.”

Table 4 contains the number of individuals per group with respect to ability. This table

represents the number of students, by DAP:IQ ability group, into the groups created from their

expressions. I created the three DAP:IQ ability groups by considering where logical breaks

occurred in the range of DAP:IQ scores.

21

Table 4 Number of Individuals per Group with Respect to Ability

Number of Individuals per Group with Respect to Ability

DAP

Score

(total #

in

groups)

Big

Groups Individual Pairs Friends

Least

Distracting

Both

Alone

and

With

Others

Small

Groups

No/

Unclear

Response

75-99

(9) 1

(11.1%) 1 (11.1%)

2

(22.2%)

1

(11.1%) 0 0 0

4

(44.4%)

104-115

(13) 4

(30.7%)

1

(7.7%)

2

(15.3%)

2

(15.3%) 0

1

(7.7%)

1

(7.7%)

2

(15.3%)

116-132

(16) 0

4

(25%)

2

(12.5%)

2

(12.5%)

2

(12.5%)

1

(6.3%)

2

(12.5%)

3

(18.7%)

There was a positive correlation found between the DAP and the OEQII.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

From these responses, I found the following three main themes across all student

grouping perceptions: 1) to be less distracted; 2) to be able to concentrate better; and, 3) to be

able to share ideas and get help from others. Also, it is evident from the data that these students

are not fully aware of grouping practices.

Reynolds and Hickman (2004) described in the DAP:IQ Examiners Manual that the

DAP:IQ measures different levels of cognitive ability. The data I collected reflected the students

differing levels of ability. The sample of students assessed with the DAP:IQ had a range of

scores, which I made representative of their ability level (into the three groups). Using the

DAP:IQ, I wanted to assess the student ability levels. Reynolds and Hickman (2004) stated that

the DAP:IQ should not be used to exclusively determine intelligence (p. v), which was taken into

consideration for the purpose of this study. The data from this study reported a wide range in IQ

scores for this sample; 75-132. Given this wide range of scores, and what appeared to be

naturally occurring breaks in the data, I broke them into the following three categories to better

analyze the students responses; 75-99 (lower ability), 104-115 (middle ability), and 116-132

(higher ability). Some of the students who scored among the lowest on the DAP:IQ were ranked

in the top of their class according to teacher rankings. This supports Reynolds and Hickman’s

position that the DAP:IQ should not be exclusively used (2004).

The main objective of this research was to find out how high ability learners perceived

the grouping strategies used in their classrooms. Rogers (2007) found that gifted individuals,

“when compared to regular learners, are significantly more likely to prefer independent study,

independent project, and self-instructed material” (p. 385). According to the data from this study

25% of the highest ability population reported they prefer to work alone. These students 25% of

23

the highest ability group reported that they want to work alone (see Table 4). These findings

reflect Rogers’ conclusions by reiterating that the students in the highest IQ group wish to work

alone. The students in this study reported they prefer working alone because they are able to

concentrate better and are less distracted.

A majority of the middle ability group (30.7%) preferred to work in big groups.

Feldhusen and Moon (1997) and Hollaway (2001) reported students of similar ability work best

with one another. Since the school is for high ability learners, these students have indicated they

prefer to work with students of like ability, which provides some elaboration to their findings.

A majority of the lower ability group (44.4%) perceived either there was no grouping

strategies employed in their classrooms, or they provided an unclear response. One possible

reason for that this group of students appeared to be unaware of grouping strategies present in

their class is four out of nine (44%) students in this group were in the fourth or fifth grade. These

students do not switch classes like the students in grades sixth through eighth. It is likely they

may be unaware they are being grouped differently because they remain in the same classroom

for all of their subjects.

Implications

High ability and giftedness in students traditionally have been measured through

intelligence tests, but this limits the scope of interpretation of a high ability learner. Teachers can

utilize the DAP:IQ and the OEQII, separately, to be able to learn more about their learners.

Bouchard (2004) explains that intelligence is merely “one facet of personality, while OEs include

five innate characteristics, to a large degree, describing the nature of the persons gifts and

talents” (p. 341). OEs could be utilized in schools to be able to take into consideration “important

behavioral and affective components” of students which would allow for more effective

24

individualization of lessons for learners (Bouchard, 2004, p. 342). Knowing this, teachers could

utilize the OEQII in order to learn more about how their students react to their environments.

The DAP:IQ could be used in addition to a traditional measure of intelligence to provide a

culturally unbiased way to assess a child who seems to be highly able, but performed below

expected on a traditional measure. These two instruments could be used as a complement to

other measures of intelligence. Not only would they provide better insight into how the students

learn, but they can help the teacher to learn more about their students.

This study impacts me as a teacher by informing me about the various ways students can

be easily assessed to learn more about them as learners. I will use the DAP:IQ to help

differentiate my students levels of ability and from this information be able to group them. I will

use the OEQII to gain more information about my learners. Since I will be teaching young group

of kindergarten students, it will be difficult for them to complete the OEQII assessment

themselves. But, I feel that it is important to learn this type of information from the student, so I

will conduct individual interviews with my students using the OEQII as a get to know you

activity.

Suggestions for Future Research

To improve upon this study, a larger sample, consisting of more than one school, should

be used. Surveying a larger representative sample, with older subjects, would enable the

researcher to make more generalizeable statements about how students perceive instructional

groupings. Comparing the OEQII and the student preference of grouping patterns would be a

logical next step. Being aware of the characteristics of the OEs, then comparing them to how the

students prefer to learn would give insight into how teachers could group students.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allan, S. D. (1991). Ability-grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping and the

gifted? Educational Leadership, 48(6), 60-65. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from the

ERIC database.

Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in grouping practices over primary and

secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 9-34.

Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of

classroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 153-172.

Bouchard, L. (2004). An instrument for the measure of Dabrowskian overexcitabilities to

identify gifted elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(4), 339-350. Retrieved

April 15, 2010, from http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint

Callahan, C., & Eichner, H. (n.d.). NAGC - IQ tests and your child. NAGC :: Home. Retrieved

January 9, 2010, from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=960

Falk, F., Lind, S., Miller, N., Piechowski, M., & Silverman, L. (1999). The overexcitability

questionnaire two (OEQII): Manual, scoring system, and questionnaire. Institute for the

Study of Advanced Development, n/a, 1-10.

Feldhusen, J., & Moon, S. (1992). Grouping gifted students: Issues and concerns. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 36(2), 63-67.

Fiedler, E. D., Lange, R. E., & Winebrenner, S. (2004). In search of reality: Unraveling the

myths about tracking, ability grouping, and the gifted. Roeper Review, 24(3), 108-111.

Retrieved November 5, 2009, from the Academic Search Premier database.

26

Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis

of survey and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 415-436.

Retrieved November 5, 2009, from the JSTOR database.

Goodenough, F. L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. New York: World Book

Company.

Holloway, J. (2001). Grouping students for increased achievement. Educational Leadership,

59(3), 84-85. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from the Academic Search Premier database.

Howard, G., & Hatch, T. (1989). multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of

the theory of multiple. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-10. Retrieved March 20, 2010,

from the JSTOR database.

intelligence tests. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved March 9, 2010,

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligencetests

Kingore, B. (Spring 2004). High achiever, gifted learner, creative learner. Understanding Our

Gifted. Retrieved January 11, 2010, from http://www.bertiekingore.com/high-gt-

create.htm

Koppitz, E. M. (1968). Psychological evaluation of children's human figure drawings. Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kroninger, C. (n.d.). Gifted?. LearnNC. Retrieved January 10, 2010, from

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/771

Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., & Baines, E. (2002). Pupil groupings in primary school classrooms:

Sites for learning and social pedagogy?. British Journal of Educational Research

Journal, 28(2), 187-206.

27

Kutnick, P., & Kington, A. (2005). Children's friendships and learning in school: Cognitive

enhancement through social interaction?. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75,

521-538.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2008). NAGC-FAQs. Retrieved January 9, 2010,

from http://www.nagc.org/index2.aspx?id=548

Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping track, part 1: The policy and practice of curriculum inequality. Phi

Delta Kappan, 68(1), 12-17. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from the ERIC database.

Piechowski, M. (1999). Overexcitabilities. In Encyclopedia of Creativity (Vol. 2, pp. 325-334).

San Diego: Academic Press.

Pigford, A. (1990). Instructional grouping: Purposes and consequences. Clearing House, 63(6),

261-263. Retrieved November 20, 2009, from the JSTOR database.

Reynolds, C. R., & Hickman, J. A. (2004). Draw-a-person intellectual ability test for children,

adolescents, and adults: Examiner's Manual. Austin: Pro-Ed.

Rinn, A., Mendaglio, S., Rudasill, K., & McQueen, K. (2010). Examining the relationship

between the overexcitabilities and self-concepts of gifted adolescents via multivarate

cluster analysis. Gifted child quarterly, 54(1), 3-17. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from the

SAGE database.

Rogers, K. (2002). Grouping the gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 24(3), 103-107. Retrieved

October 3, 2009, from the Academic Search Premier database

Rogers, K. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the

research on educational practice. Gifted child quarterly, 51, 382-396. Retrieved

November 9, 2009, from the EBSCO Electronic Journals database.

28

Shields, C. (2002). A comparison study of student attitudes and perceptions in homogeneous and

heterogeneous classrooms. Roeper Review, 24(3), 115-119.

Wilmington Academy of Art and Sciences - Private Academy - Our Goal. (n.d.). Wilmington

Academy of Art and Sciences - Private Academy - Our Goal. Retrieved January 16, 2010,

from http://www.wilmingtonacademy

29

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Instruments

30

31

32

33