Learning With Stronger Peers Does not Improve Performance in Marginal Students

A latest finding knocks down previous studies that showed students performed better in a stronger peer group.

Researchers at the Michigan State University highlighted that students didn't perform better when surrounded by higher achieving classmates. The study, led by Scott Imberman and colleagues, noticed that the marginal students in a gifted and talented program for middle school students failed to perform better on the national test despite learning alongside stronger peers.

"This paper is part of a growing body of literature suggesting that just because you have stronger peers doesn't necessarily mean you are going to perform better," said Imberman, associate professor of economics and education.

Study reports state that more than 3 million students are a part of the nationwide 'gifted and talented program'. This is the first study to focus on the effects of gifted and talented programs on students. The researchers observed a sample of more than 14,000 fifth graders in an urban school district.

As part of the study, the researchers examined the standardized test scores of the students in maths, science, social studies, reading, science and language arts. The study focused on the group of students who made it to the gifted and talented program by meeting the bare minimum qualifying mark. Later, the test scores of the students were compared to the students who just missed qualifying for the program by a bare margin. There was not much difference in the students academically.

The researchers stated that the marginal students who were in the gifted and talented program showed no signs of improvement in test scores in any of the five subjects over the students who didn't qualify.

The researchers also looked at the magnet program students, who are picked from among the gifted and talented students to undergo a more intense curriculum. Their test scores were compared to students who missed out on the program. No significant improvement in scores was noticed in four out of five subjects. The students did do better in science.