Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 16 August 2021

Why Acceleration is a Controversial Debate Among Educators?

Nadire Gulcin Yildiz

Medipol University

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1993.04.03.334

Pages: 232-242

Keywords: Acceleration, Educators, Gifted Education, Gifted Students

Abstract

The concept of “acceleration” continues to pay subject to a number of controversial debates in education. Much of the controversy around the concept can be associated with the beliefs and attitudes of educators, which have little or no grounds in research (Vialle, Ashton, Carlon, & Rankin, 2001). While acceleration takes on many forms, educators often correlate the concept with radical acceleration or multiple grade skipping. Teachers oppose acceleration because they believe that students’ social and emotional needs come before their academic ones (Vialle, Ashton, Carlon, & Rankin, 2001). On the other hand, research on acceleration consistently indicates positive academic attainments for those who are accelerated (Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2015; Benbow, 1992; Gross, 1992; Kulik & Kulik, 1991, 1992; Rogers, 2015; Swiatek, 1993). This paper aims to examine the reasons for the continuous gap between the effectiveness of research on acceleration and educators’ attitudes toward it; thus, I will be analyzing the factors that are believed to influence practitioners’ resistance toward using acceleration as an intervention strategy with gifted and talented students.

References

  1. Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students(Vol. I). Iowa City: University of Iowa, Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

  2. Assouline, S.G., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Lipscomb J., & Forstadt, L. (2003). Iowa Acceleration Scale Manual: A guide for whole-grade acceleration K-8 (3rd edition). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

  3. Benbow, C. (1992). Progress in gifted education-everywhere but here! Gifted Child Today, 15, 2-8.

  4. Brody, I.E. & Benbow, C. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How effective are they for the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 105-109.

  5. Butterworth, D., & Constable, E. (1982). School entry age-implications for teachers and parents. Australian Journal of Early Childhood,7(l), 32-35.

  6. Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted.Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

  7. Colangelo, N & Assouline, S.(2009). Acceleration: Meeting the academic and social needs of students (Ch 25). In The Routledge International Companion to Gifted Education.In T. Balchin, B. Hymer & D. J. Matthews (Eds.) (pp. 194-202). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.

  8. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Philadelphia: John Templeton Foundation.

  9. Collins, J. (2001). Inquiry into the education of gifted and talented children: Submissions. Canberra, ACT: Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee.

  10. Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (1999). The 1998-1999 state of the states gifted and talented education report. Longmont, CO: Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted.

  11. Daurio, S. P. (1979). Educational enrichment versus acceleration: A review of the literature. In W.C. George, S.J. Cohns, & J.C. Stanley (Eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment(pp. 13-66). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

  12. Dawson, V.L. (1997). In search of the wild bohemian: Challenges in the identification of the creatively gifted. Roeper Review, 19(3), 148-152.

  13. Gagné, F., & Nadeau, L. (1991). Opinions about the gifted and their education. Unpublished instrument.

  14. Gallagher, J. J. (2003). Education Acceleration: Why or Why Not? Parenting for High Potential, retrieved from www. nagc.org on February 20, 2009.

  15. Geake, J. G. & Gross M. U. M. (2008). Teachers’ Negative Affect Toward Academically Gifted Students: An Evolutionary Psychological Study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 217-231.

  16. Gross, M. U. M. (1992). The use of radical acceleration in cases of extreme intellectual precocity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 91-99.

  17. Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children.London: Routledge.

  18. Gross, M. U. M. (2003). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

  19. Heinboket, A. (1997). Acceleration through grade skipping in Germany. High Ability Studies, 8(l), 61-77.

  20. 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(2), 112–117.

  21. Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives (RBDM 9204). Storrs: University of Connecticut, the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (retrieved online http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/kulik.html).

  22. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1991). Ability grouping and gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education(pp. 178-196). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

  23. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.

  24. Kulik, J.A. & Kulik, C.C. (1990). Ability grouping and gifted students. Handbook of Gifted Education, (ed.), N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

  25. Lee, S. Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. T. (2012). Academically gifted students perceived interpersonal competence and peer relationships. Gifted Child Quarterly,56, 90–104.

  26. Lubinski, D. (2004). Long-term effects of educational acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (pp. 23-37). Iowa City, IA: The Belin Blank Center Gifted Education and Talent Development.

  27. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence: A psychological interpretation of their emergence. American Psychologist, 55, 137-150.

  28. Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow. C. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-Year follow-up of the profoundly gifted, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 720.

  29. Lupkowski-Scholik, A., Behrens, W. A., & Assouline, S. G. (2018). Developing academic acceleration policies: Whole grade, early entrance & single subject.Retrieved from http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/Resources/Policy_Guidelines/Developing-Academic-Acceleration-Policies.pdf

  30. Mares, L., & Bytes, J. (1994). One step ahead. Melbourne: Hawker Browntow Education.

  31. McCoach, D. B. & Siegle, D. ( 2007). What Predicts Teachers’ Attitudes Toward the Gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246-255.

  32. National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC). (2004). Acceleration[Position Paper]. Washington, DC: Author.

  33. National Association for Gifted Children. (1998). Pre-K - Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards. Retrieved online from http://www.nagc.org on February 20, 2009.

  34. National Association for Gifted Children.(2006). NCATE Teacher Preparation Standards in Gifted Education.Retrieved online from http://www.nagc.orgon February 20, 2009.

  35. News Brief. (2008). Social and emotional learning. Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 8-9.

  36. Olenchak, R. (1995). Effects of enrichment on gifted/learning disabled. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 385-399.

  37. Peterson, J.S. & Margolin, L. (1997). Naming gifted children: An example of unintended “reproduction.” Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21(1), 82-100.

  38. Piper, S., & Creps, K. (1991). Practical concerns in assessment and placement in academic acceleration. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.), The academic acceleration of gifted children(pp. 162-180) New York: Teachers College Press.

  39. 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(2), 70-76.

  40. Rankin, F., & Vialle, W. (1996) Early Entry: A Policy in Search of Practice. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 21(i), 6-1 1.

  41. Rogers, K. (1992). A best-evidence synthesis of research on acceleration options for gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings of the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 406-409). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.

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

  43. Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-Forming Gifted Education: How parents and teachers can match the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. 2002.

  44. Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: How parents and teachers can match the program to the child.Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

  45. Rogers, K. B. (2015). The academic, socialization, and psychological effects of acceleration: Research synthesis. In S. G. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, & A. Lupkowski-Shoplik, (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’sbrightest students(Vol. 2, pp. 19-29). Iowa City: University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

  46. Rohrer, J.C. (1995). Primary teacher conceptions of giftedness: Image, evidence, and nonevidence. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18(3), 269-283.

  47. Ropp, M.M. (1999). Exploring individual characteristics associated with learning to use computers in pre-service teacher preparation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 402-424.

  48. Schack, G. D., & Starko, A. J. (1990). Identification of giftedstudents: An analysis of criteria preferred by pre-service teachers, classroom teachers, and teachersof the gifted.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(1), 346-363.

  49. Seligman, M. E. P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology: An Introduction. American Psychologists, 55(1), 5-14.

  50. Seligman, M. E. P. (1988). The gifted and the extraordinary. Psychology Monitor, 29(11)

  51. Shore, B.M. & Kaizer, C. (1989). The training of teachers for gifted pupils. Canadian Journal of Education, 14(1), 74-87.

  52. Southern W. T. & Jones, E. D. (2004). Types of Acceleration: Dimensions and Issues,” Vol. II, Chapter 1, pp. 5–12. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross, A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Philadelphia: John Templeton Foundation.

  53. Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (2015). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In S. G. Assouline, N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, & A. Lupkowski-Shoplik, (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 9-18). Iowa City: University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

  54. Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Fiscus, E. D. (1989). Practitioner objections to the academic acceleration of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 29–35.

  55. Stanley, J.C. (1984). Use of general and specific aptitude measures in identification: Some principles and certain cautions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(4), 177-180.

  56. Starko, A. J. (1990).Life and death of a gifted program: Lessons not yet learned.Roeper Review, 13(1), 33-38.

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

  58. Thomas, T.A. (1980). Acceleration for the academically talented. ERIC Documents Reproduction Service (ED 307303).

  59. Tomlinson, C. (1997, May). What it means to teach gifted learners well. The Instructional Leader, 10(3), 1-3, 12.

  60. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1986). Acceleration. In C. J. Maker (Ed.), Critical issues in gifted education, (pp. 179-196). Rockville, MD: Aspen publishers.

  61. Vialle, W., Ashton, T., Carlon, G., & Rankin, F. (2001). Acceleration: A coat of many colours.Roeper Review, 24(1), 14-20.

  62. Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The benefits of school-based social and emotional learning programs: Highlights from a forthcoming CASEL report.Retrieved from http://www.CASEL.org). Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.

  63. Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55, 159-169.

  64. Witham, J.H. (1992). A Comparison of acceleration, curriculum integration, and critical thinking skills in self-contained gifted public and private schools/classes. Unpublished Dissertation.