What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K–12 Students’ Academic Achievement: Findings of Two Second-Order Meta-Analyses
Abstract
Two second-order meta-analyses synthesized approximately 100 years of research on the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement. Outcomes of 13 ability grouping meta-analyses showed that students benefited from within-class grouping (0.19 ≤ g ≤ 0.30), cross-grade subject grouping (g = 0.26), and special grouping for the gifted (g = 0.37), but did not benefit from between-class grouping (0.04 ≤ g ≤0.06); the effects did not vary for high-, medium-, and low-ability students. Three acceleration meta-analyses showed that accelerated students significantly outperformed their nonaccelerated same-age peers (g = 0.70) but did not differ significantly from nonaccelerated older peers (g = 0.09). Three other meta-analyses that aggregated outcomes across specific forms of acceleration found that acceleration appeared to have a positive, moderate, and statistically significant impact on students’ academic achievement (g = 0.42).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Research provides strong support for accelerated programming for gifted students, but support for acceleration is not universal.
“Although research strongly supports accelerated programming for gifted students (Assouline et al. 2015, Steenbergen-Hu et al. 2016), even support for acceleration is not universal.”
From Gifted Students (2019) · cites this paper as Steenbergen-Hu et al. 2016
Talent search participants frequently engage in accelerated classes, which are well supported in the empirical literature.
“perhaps due to the fact that talent search participants frequently engage in accelerated classes, which are also well supported in the empirical literature”
From Gifted Students (2019) · cites this paper as Steenbergen-Hu et al. 2016
Evidence in support of the effectiveness of acceleration is extensive and robust.
“the evidence in support of the effectiveness of acceleration is extensive and robust (Assouline et al. 2015, Lubinski 2016, Steenbergen-Hu et al. 2016).”
From Gifted Students (2019) · cites this paper as Steenbergen-Hu et al. 2016
Cites
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225 · see citing works
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099 · see citing works
Distribution Theory for Glass's Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators
Hedges, L. V. (1981) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164588 · Cited by 5,695 · see citing works
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553 · see citing works
Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486 · Cited by 2,977 · see citing works
Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010 · Cited by 2,053 · see citing works
Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. (2014) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1095 · Cited by 916 · see citing works
Facts Are More Important Than Novelty: Replication in the Education Sciences
Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x14545513 · Cited by 609 · see citing works
Self-citationPublication Bias in Meta‐Analysis
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005) · Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis · doi:10.1002/0470870168.ch1 · Cited by 603 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Dixson, D. D. (2019) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Self-citationBridging the gap between research and practice: Predicting what will work locally
Joyce, K. E., & Cartwright, N. (2020) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/0002831219866687 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Students’ growth mindset: Relation to teacher beliefs, teaching practices, and school climate
Yu, J., Kreijkes, P., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2022) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101616 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
The misallocation of students to academic sets in maths: A study of secondary schools in England
Connolly, P., Taylor, B., Francis, B., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Mazenod, A., & Tereshchenko, A. (2019) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.3530 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Francis, B., Craig, N., Hodgen, J., Taylor, B., Tereshchenko, A., Connolly, P., & Archer, L. (2020) · British Journal of Sociology of Education · doi:10.1080/01425692.2020.1763162 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
- Authors
- Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University
- Duke University (US)
- ORCID
- Makel, Matthew C.
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Published
- 2016-11-22
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 849-899
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1046
- OpenAlex
- W2553955480
- Cited by
- 429
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 47 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 15
- FWCI
- 38.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences
- Keywords
- ability grouping, academic acceleration, academic performance, gifted education, K-12 students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
