Current empirical research about the effects of acceleration on high-ability learners’ academic achievement and social— emotional development were synthesized using meta-analytic techniques. A total of 38 primary studies conducted between 1984 and 2008 were included. The results were broken down by developmental level (P-12 and postsecondary) and comparison group (whether the accelerants were compared with same-age, older, or mixed-age peers). The findings are consistent with the conclusions from previous meta-analytic studies, suggesting that acceleration had a positive impact on high-ability learners’ academic achievement (g = 0.180, 95% CI = -.072, .431, under a random-effects model). In addition, the social—emotional development effects appeared to be slightly positive (g = 0.076, 95% CI = -.025, .176, under a random-effects model), although not as strong as for academic achievement. No strong evidence regarding the moderators of the effects was found.
Putting the Research to Use
The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that acceleration influences high-ability learners in positive ways, especially on academic achievement. An important message for educators, parents and students is that high-ability learners can benefit from acceleration both in the short-term and in the long run. Specifically, accelerated students tend to outperform students who are not accelerated in their performance on standardized achievement tests, college grades, degrees obtained, status of universities or colleges attended, and career status. Accelerants equal or surpass non-accelerants in self-concept, self-esteem, self-confidence, social relationships, participation in extracurricular activities, and life satisfaction. It is informative for policy-makers that acceleration programs, especially university-based early college entrance programs, have been frequently assessed and appear to be the most effective. In summary, acceleration can be effective both in K-12 education and in college. Parents are encouraged to consider acceleration for their academically talented children and educators are encouraged to make acceleration options available.
Ahadi, S., & Diener, E. ( 1989). Multiple determinants and effect size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 398-406.
2.
Aiken, L.R. ( 2004). Psychological testing and assessment. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
3.
*Ambruster, R.L. ( 1995). The effectiveness of an early entrance screening instrument as an accurate predictor of success in elementary grades (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville .
4.
Asher, J.W. ( 1986). Conducting research with meta-analysis: A new direction for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 7-10.
5.
Asher, J.W. ( 2003). Meta-analysis and gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 7-19.
6.
Berliner, D.C. ( 2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31, 18-20.
Borman, G. D., & Grigg, J. A. (2009). Visual and narrative interpretation . In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 497-519.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
9.
*Brody, L., Assouline, S.G., & Stanley, J.C. ( 1990). Five years of early entrants: Predicting successful achievement in college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 138-142.
10.
*Callahan, C., & Smith, R.M. ( 1990). Keller’s personalized system of instruction in a junior high gifted program. Roeper Review, XIII, 39-44.
11.
*Chilton, C.M. ( 2001). The math achievement, experiences, and attitudes of gifted and promising math students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe.
12.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G., & Gross, M.U.M. ( 2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II, pp. 13-22). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
13.
Cooper, H. ( 2007). Evaluating and interpreting research syntheses in adult learning and literacy (Harvard Graduate School of Education, National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy [NCSALL] Occasional Paper). Retrieved from http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/research/op_research_syntheses.pdf
14.
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
15.
Cumming, G., & Finch, S. ( 2001). A primer on the understanding, use and calculation of confidence intervals that are based on central and noncentral distributions . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 532-575.
16.
Glass, G.V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M.L. ( 1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
Duvall, S., & Tweedie, R. ( 2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnelplot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics , 56, 455-463.
18.
Hedges, L.V. ( 1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics , 6, 107-128.
19.
Hedges, L., Shymansky, J., & Woodworth, G. ( 1989). A practical guide to modern methods of meta-analysis . Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
20.
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2006). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester, England: Wiley.
21.
*Hsu, L. ( 2003). Measuring the effectiveness of summer intensive physics courses for gifted students: A pilot study and agenda for research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 212-218.
22.
*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.
23.
*Janos, P.M., & Robinson, N.M. (1985). The performance of students in a program of radical acceleration at the university level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 175-179.
24.
Kent, S.D. ( 1992). The effects of acceleration on the social and emotional development of gifted elementary students: A meta-analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(2-A).
25.
Kulik, J.A. ( 2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline , & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II, pp. 13-22). Iowa City, IA : Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
26.
Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. ( 1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54, 409-425.
27.
Lauer, J., & Asher, J.W. ( 1988). Composition research: Empirical designs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
*Moon, T.R., & Callahan, C.M. (2001). Curricular modifications, family outreach, and a mentoring program: Impacts on achievement and gifted identification in high-risk primary students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 305-321.
29.
National Work Group on Acceleration. (2009 ). Guidelines for developing an academic acceleration policy . Iowa City: Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration, at the University of Iowa’s Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
30.
Neihart, M. ( 2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping: Recommendations for best practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 330-341.
31.
Pressey, S.L. ( 1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisals and basic problems . Columbus: Ohio State University .
32.
Robinson, N.M. ( 2004). Effects of academic acceleration on the social-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo , S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II, pp.59-67). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
33.
*Robinson, N.M., & Janos, P.M. ( 1986). Psychological adjustment in a college-level program of marked academic acceleration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 15, 51-60.
34.
Rogers, K.B. ( 1991). A best-evidence synthesis of research on types of accelerative programs for gifted students. Dissertation Abstracts International , 52, 796-A. (UMI No. AAT91-22206)
35.
Rogers, K.B. ( 2004). The academic effects of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline , & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II, pp. 47-57). Iowa City, IA : Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
36.
Rogers, K.B., Young, M., &Lonergan, R. ( 2008). A best-evidence synthesis of the research on academic acceleration 1990-present. Paper presented at the Ninth Biennial Henry B. & Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development, Iowa City, IA.
37.
Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (Eds.). (1991). The academic acceleration of gifted children. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
38.
*Stamps, L. ( 2004). The effectiveness of curriculum compacting in first grade classrooms. Roeper Review, 27, 31-41.
39.
Strube, M.J. ( 1991). Multiple determinants and effect size: A more general method of discourse. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 61, 1024-1027.
40.
*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.
41.
Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., McNulty, J.L., Arbisi, P.A., Graham, J.R., & Kaemmer, B. ( 2003). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales: Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
42.
Thompson, B. ( 2002). What future quantitative social science research could look like: Confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educational Researcher, 31, 24-31.
43.
Thompson, B. ( 2006). Research synthesis: Effect sizes. In J. Green, G. Camilli , & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp.583-603). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
44.
U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
45.
Vaughn, V.L., Feldhusen, J., & Asher, J.W. ( 1991). Meta-analyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 92-98.
46.
*Washington, J. ( 1999). Achievement and social-emotional outcomes of a multigraded, accelerated mathematics program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Johns Hopkins University. (AAT 9964225)
47.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2007, April 16). Technical details of WWC-conducted computations. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/conducted_computations.pdf
48.
*Wells, R., Lohman, D., &Marron, M. ( 2008). What factors are associated with grade acceleration? An analysis and comparison of two U. S. databases. (Note: This study was obtained from the authors in 2008 when it was in the process of preparation for publication.)
