Comparison of two articles researching the same topic
SPED 452, submitted by Sylvia Zinser
1. Introduction
Two articles about effects of acceleration were examined for this comparison. One of them, written by J.A. Kulik and C.C. Kulik [Kulik KulikKulik Kulik1984] is a meta-analysis which is regularly cited by other authors publishing about this topic, including the authors of the second article. The other one, written by W.Vialle et al. [Vialle, Ashton, Carlon, RankinVialle et al.2001] introduces three different studies about acceleration and their outcome. The goal of this comparison is to evaluate “new research” vs. “old research” and examine the novell components in the more recent article.
2. The old article
Kulik and Kulik performed a meta-analysis about the effects of acceleration of gifted children [Kulik KulikKulik Kulik1984]. The authors state that many older studies emphasized the positive effect of acceleration, yet these studies never were quantitatively evaluated. On the other hand the authors mention the negative attitude of educators towards acceleration. The goal of Kulik and Kulik’s “study of studies” is to clarify the true results of accelerating, and to help with decisions whether students should be accelerated or not. Two different kinds of studies were analyzed: One set compared accelerants with nonaccelerated agemates, the other type compared them to their new, older classmates. In both kinds of studies the academic outcome for the accelerated students is found to be very positive. For the non-cognitive outcomes like subject matter attitudes, attitudes toward school etc. there is no satisfying result, because the examined studies disagree. Kulik and Kulik reason that these outcomes are difficult to measure and that this research therefore can not give accurate results. Also their sample of studies which included the non-cognitive factors was small.
All in all this is a very informative and thorough article, based on solid statistical analysis. It explains reasons for the respective results. Also the authors admit, that they failed to achieve one main goal of their work: to find reasons for success or failure of acceleration. The fact that this article is cited in many other articles about acceleration underlines its strength.
3. The new article
Wilma Vialle and others write about three different studies exploring different forms of acceleration [Vialle, Ashton, Carlon, RankinVialle et al.2001]. It is meant to contribute to the current discussion about acceleration in Australia. This discussion is dominated by a negative attitude towards this topic, which is in contrast to the positive outcomes of acceleration described in the literature. The article discusses three different studies related to acceleration. The first study examines the attitudes of principals towards early school entry. This is done using questionnaires. Most of the applicants for early entry were rejected, but usually not for the reason of lack of academic aptitude. Principals rather were concerned about the social and emotional readyness and maturity of the children. The findings show that principals who are trained in gifted education are more open to this way of acceleration.
The second study was aimed at the academic as well as the social and emotional well-being of accelerants. It is is a collection of five case studies. All five students managed the more challenging work and were happier. Only those whose receiving teachers had some training in gifted education and were provided with a differentiated curriculum, kept enjoying their work. Four of the five children did not show any social problems in their new class, while the social problems of the fifth student at least did not get worse.
The third study discusses “vertical timetabeling” which is another term for subject acceleration. This study finds that accelerated students arrive very fast at the top of their new class. After a period of six weeks they begin to become dissatisfied again. The authors give as reasons that the students perceive their lessons as too teacher centered, that they dislike repetitions, and that they often end up in receiving classes which contain the weaker students of that age level. Also the lack of teacher training in gifted education is mentioned. Teachers are also interviewed. They stated that the social and emotional needs of the students were not taken care of and that these needs should be considered for acceleration. Yet, it seems that these teachers are inclined to use a lack of maturity as a reason for non-acceleration.
The authors emphasize in their conclusion, that the success of acceleration strongly depends on the provided curriculum and acceptance and support of the gifted children by their teachers, parents, and peers. Combining three distinct studies into one article is an unusual and difficult approach, yet all in all this article is well written and put together logically.
For the first study about attitudes toward early entrance a statistical evaluation is not entirely easy because of the small sample size of 63 schools. The same applies for the third study where the questionnaires of only 33 students were evaluated. This is a weakness in the article. Despite this, the misfit between the negative perception and the actual success of acceleration is shown clearly by the three different studies.
4. Comparison
Both articles try to answer the same question: Why is it that acceleration is viewed negatively and the statistical outcome is positive in the literature. They both differentiate between academic and social/emotional adjustments in the respective new classes.
While Kulik and Kulik approach the topic using a researched statistical method, Vialle’s study uses questionnaires and interviews. All questionnaires were evaluated statistically. Both articles agree that accelerating usually is successful and that accelerants generally perform very well in their new classes. Only the newer study (Vialle et al.) mentions, that accelerants need more than acceleration i.e. other factors contribute to their success in the new classrooms. Kulik and Kulik do not include early entrance into their analysis, Vialle et al. do not explicitly describe success or failure of this method, either, except in the second study, in the context of the case of one student.
Another focus of both studies is the social and emotional development of accelerated children: Kulik and Kulik do not arrive at clear results. They blame the “measuring tools” (Kulik, 1984, p 423) which the original studies used. While Kulik and Kulik can not determine whether acceleration is emotionally beneficial to students, the more recent study comes to clearer results: In their second study four of the five accelerants are not only academically, but also socially well adjusted. The fifth student is homeschooled, because the social problems continued after the acceleration. Generally speaking, “the experience of grade skipping was seen as a positive one by each of the students, academically, socially, and emotionally.” (Vialle et al. 2001, p 17). The authors conclude that if skipping a grade does not improve the situation, it at least does not make it worse. Also their third study describes successful social and emotional adjustment of accelerants. However, the positive outcome of the acceleration depends on further factors like adapted curriculum and content and the training of the receiving teachers.
Since the results are acquired using different methods in both articles, one has to be cautious comparing them: Kulik and Kulik tried to synthesize informations gathered by various methods while Vialle et al. used only one method of data collection.
The article by Kulik and Kulik is a solid base if one is interested in academic success of acceleration. The article by Vialle et al. describes successes empirically. The importance of trained teachers and curriculum and content which is adapted to the gifted students’ needs is emphasized, the discrepancy between the reported success of acceleration and teachers’ and principals’ attitude towards it is pronounced. These factors could not be included in Kulik and Kuliks meta-analysis, because it summarizes various studies and Kulik and Kulik had no influence over the parameters of these studies.
Kulik and Kulik use all studies they can find at this time for their evaluation. However, seemingly all studies are from the USA. Vialle et al. use data from Australia. If the cultural environment would alter the results can not be determined. The similar results of both studies concerning the academic success of the students do not suggest a cultural influence.
Both articles encourage parents to consider acceleration for their children because the chance is good that their grades will not drop. Yet, both articles are published in periodicals aimed at teachers. They both might increase the willingness of teachers to try acceleration, Kulik and Kulik because of the massive statistical background and Vialle et al. because they show positive results concerning the social and emotional needs of the accelerated students.
References
[Kulik KulikKulik Kulik1984] Kulik, J. A. Kulik, C.-L. C. 1984. Effects of Accelerated Instruction on Students. Review of Educational Research, 54(3).
[Vialle, Ashton, Carlon RankinVialle .2001] Vialle, W., Ashton, T., Carlon, G. Rankin, F. 2001. Acceleration: A Coat of Many Colours. Roeper Review, 24(1).
