Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
In the journal article, Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic selfconcept and boredom, Preckel et al. (2010) argue that securing appropriate challenges or preventing boredom is frequently used in justifying the ability grouping of gifted students. He also postulates that this criterion has, over time, revealed positive achievement effects. However, those opposed to the grouping cite psychosocial costs as one of the downsides of the criterion. Consequently, this paper seeks to critique the journal article, highlighting its strengths and weakness to help the reader better understand the points that Preckel et al. (2010) make. Preckel et al. (2010) sought to examine the effects of full-time ability grouping on students academic self-evaluation and their boredom experiences in class within special classes for those who are gifted. To adequately address the research question, Preckel et al. (2010) sought to address three hypotheses.
Summary of the Article
Literature Review
While Preckel et al. (2010) posit that there have been several studies on the effect of ability groupings on the academic self-concept of gifted students, they also appreciate a less frequently observed angle that focuses on changes in academic self-concept over time. Thus, this study also focused on the effect of ability grouping by considering classroom boredom. In their paper, Preckel et al. (2010) point out that special classrooms for gifted combine curriculum changes aiming to improve education quality with ability tracking. However, the big-fish-little-pond effect (BFLPE) tends to make many students suffer a decrease in academic self-concept when grouped with other students. Equal-ability students affected by this effect show lower academic self-concepts in classes where the average ability of classmates is high and vice versa. Although BFLPE is a persistent, long-lasting phenomenon, there are no uniform decreases in academic self-concept. They appear most pronounced shortly after transitioning students from a lower-ability reference group to a higher one. Thus, Preckel et al. (2010) posit that BFLPE should be most pronounced during the formation of the new groups and the alteration of the social group and reference frame.
Regarding boredom in students, Preckel et al. (2010) allege that literature on gifted education is replete with boredom. It is commonly regarded as a compelling state comprising low physiological arousal, lack of stimulation, and unpleasant feelings. The biggest downside of boredom is time dilation. However, Preckel et al. (2010) mention that education research has yet to give boredom the attention it requires. This disregard for boredom is tied to the belief that it is only felt by students as faintly unpleasant, besides being silent emotion and inconspicuous. Preckel et al. (2010) link boredom causes to instructional characteristics, teacher personality, and causes within the students themselves.
Method
The study investigated ninth-grade students in an Austrian school system. The authors used a sample of 186 students, including 79 female, 106 male, and 1 unspecified with a mean age of 14.75 years, to conduct research. The students attended eight classes at one high school that included special homogenous classes for gifted students. Data collection occurred in three waves in the first half of grade nine, including the first week, ten weeks later, and at the end of the school year. Standardized IQ tests and self-report questionnaires were used for the data collection on different variables, including psychological and demographic data.
Results and Discussion
After carrying out the study, Preckel et al. (2010) made critical findings concerning their postulations. They found that academic self-concept in mathematics had good retest reliability, with boredom frequencies and reasons being noticeably lower and still highly significant. There was a negative relationship between the academic self-concept and boredom frequency, except for small to midsize correlations, and boredom resulting from being over-challenged. However, there was a positive correlation between academic self-concept and boredom from being under-challenged. Students with higher mathematical abilities had lower boredom experiences in class and boredom resulting from being under-challenged compared to those with lower mathematical skills. Thus, Preckel et al. (2010) confirmed the first hypothesis as true, noting that the academic self-concept of gifted decreases due to BFLPE when attending more selective classes. They also confirmed the second hypothesis, noting that self-concept changes are most pronounced early during the school year. Lastly, Preckel et al. (2010) confirmed the third hypothesis, noting that gifted students showed increased boredom due to being under-challenged as opposed to non-gifted students who reported increased boredom due to being over-challenged. To conclude, this study is critical in providing detailed insight into the boredom phenomenon among gifted and non-gifted students as it incorporates subjective reasons for boredom.
Critique of the Article
Preckel et al. (2010) begin writing their paper by clearly stating the subject matter their research sought to investigate: Ability grouping of gifted students: effects on academic self-concept and boredom. Thus, before readers engage with the article, they have a rough idea of what it addresses. The contributors to the article and the year it was published are also clearly stated alongside the institutions to which they are affiliated. Thus, anyone intending to use information from this article in their work can correctly quote the authorities to such information, alleviating any plagiarism penalties.
Another strength of the article is that it contains a precise abstract highlighting all relevant information that summarizes various parts of the article. Preckel et al. (2010) give a brief background of their study, helping the reader t understand the reason behind the need for their study. The papers objective is also stated in the abstract so that any reader can experience it. Other relevant aspects of the paper that any reader can peruse as they go through the abstract include the sample, the methodology that Preckel et al. (2010) employed in their study, and the results and conclusions they drew after conducting the study. Thus, any reader can read the entire paper, albeit in a summary form, by just reading the abstract.
At the beginning of the introduction section of their paper, Preckel et al. (2010) clearly state the objective for which they are conducting the study. Consequently, after going through the heading and the abstract, it is evident to any reader to reaffirm that the papers objective is indeed aligned with the information they might be seeking. To validate the relevance of their study and study objective, Preckel et al. (2010) review previous studies, noting existing gaps in the study subject. Thus, their study is vital in breaching the gap relating to self-concept and boredom in the area of academics. Thus, it is not just an area that is randomly chosen, but it was carefully considered, gaps identified, and relevant solutions are of most necessity. However, the downside of the literature that Preckel et al. (2010) quoted is drawn from some sources that can easily be considered outdated. Preckel et al. (2010) cite some of the works that are as old as 30 years old. These studies may no longer be accurate currently. Thus, it would have been more compelling should the literature cited have been within a 5-year range.
One of the important aspects of the research study is the research questions and hypotheses. They play a pivotal role in guiding the study and outlining the possible findings of the study. Thus, any well-structured research paper must contain these aspects. Preckel et al. (2010) clearly stated the three hypotheses that their study sought to either confirm or reject. These hypotheses align well with the objective of the paper and the gaps within the existing literature about the study subject. Consequently, Preckel et al. (2010) did excellent work defining the study hypotheses.
The study methodology is critical in giving research legitimacy. It helps in providing scientifically sound findings. Furthermore, it is also central in detailing the study plan, helping to maintain the researchers on track. Preckel et al. (2010), understanding this, provided their research method, highlighting their research population, sample, and their selection. They also highlighted their study design, indicating the data collection approach. Further, they also defined various variables and measures included in the study. Preckel et al. (2010) also did exceptional work detailing their approach to analyzing the data collected from the field, providing ways of dealing with missing data and analysis procedures. The choice of methodology by Preckel et al. (2010) is a perfect march for the study. Their population and sample align well with the study and study objective since the participants were students from one high school but from various classes. The sample also comprised a perfect mix of genders, student academic giftings, and ages. All these aspects are a perfect fit in helping Preckel et al. (2010) to either reject or confirm their hypotheses. Thus, one can conclude whether the study is legitimate and whether the findings are scientifically sound based on the methodology provided.
While generally, the paper is above par, the results section is the most profound. Preckel et al. (2010) present their results in descriptive and tabular forms, making the reader understand from both the visual and reading aspects. They also state clearly whether the studys results confirm their hypotheses, accompanying their conclusion with the results that support the claim. However, the downside of the results section is that Preckel et al. (2010) use several abbreviations that have yet to be defined in the previous sections of the paper. Thus, it is difficult for the reader who is not conversant with these abbreviations to understand some of the aspects of the results. However, Preckel et al. (2010) provided a detailed discussion of these results, breaking down any complexities. They also detail why their results confirm or reject their hypotheses. Consequently, they make it easier for any reader to connect their thought process that led to the conclusion they drew from the study.
Lastly, Preckel et al. (2010) conducted wide research of previous studies. It is clear from the list of references they provided that they did great work in this area. Their references are also relevant to the topic. They most are about areas relating to the study subject. However, they used some of the studies that could be considered outdated when they were conducting the study. Some studies are as old as 30 years, so their information could easily be considered obsolete.
Conclusion
Preckel et al. (2010) did a great job in their study on the effect of grouping gifted students on academic self-concept and boredom. Their paper is well structured, providing precise and relevant information that a reader can find helpful. While the paper is largely appealing and relevant, Preckel et al. (2010) ought to have used credible sources and left out outdated ones from their literature review. They also should have avoided abbreviations in their results sections without detailing what they mean.
Reference
Preckel, F., Götz, T., & Frenzel, A. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic selfconcept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 451-472. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.