Teacher as Researcher
Literature Review (EDP 417 Assignment)
Human intelligence is a precious and a scarce commodity to waste on an arbitrary organisation of instruction (Tieso, 2005). Whether, and how to group students to produce academic gains for students has been the focus of research and heated debate amongst teachers, researchers and policy makers for decades (Lou, 2013).
The criteria of grouping is based on theories of intelligence testing that argue that removing heterogeneity and diversity of the group assist in effectively catering for students’ needs. This facilitates whole-class teaching and allows schools to match teachers to the educational needs of the students (Sukhnandan & Lee, 1999). While opponents, whether in between-class or within-class ability grouping, argue that separating students on ability may increase divisions among race, ethnicity and class with psychological effect such as lower self-concept (Lou, 2013).
Moreover, in mathematics classes, students with inadequate math skills requiring longer time to master new concepts are likely to lag behind, eventually losing interest and self-confidence in their mathematical ability. This would require teacher intervention in dealing with the heterogeneity of the classroom. Hallam, Ireson, Lister, Chaudhury, and Davies (2003) reports based on a British survey that teachers find use of homogenous within-class ability grouping for reading in English and less frequently for mathematics, and mixed-ability groupings in other subjects. The effectiveness of within-class grouping versus no grouping for mathematics, in achieving academic gains, is the focus of this Action Research Project (ARP). Thus the ARP statement is:
What effect does within-class ability grouping have on upper primary level (3-6) class students’ achievement and confidence in mathematics as measured by pre & post mathematics test, questionnaire and a mini (2 min) show and tell presentation (utilising a rating scale).
Definitions
Students grouping based on their ability in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups of mixed abilities usually occur between and within-class. Students when assigned to classes based on general ability and remain in those classes for all subjects is referred to as streaming, tracking, or cluster grouping. Setting is regrouping students based on their ability in certain subjects, while banding is dividing a particular year group based on their differentiated ability into multiple classes (Matthews, Ritchotte, & McBee, 2013; Sukhnandan & Lee, 1999).
Within-class grouping could be heterogeneous or homogeneous; also referred to as “small group instruction” or “intraclass grouping” (Abrami, Lou, Chambers, Poulsen, & Spence, 2000). This grouping, decided by the teacher, allows for provision of differentiated instructions that are relevant to a greater number of pupils. This reduces the demand on the teachers’ planning time, allowing fewer instructions and increasing the time spent with students (Matthews et al., 2013).
Current key research studies
In order to inform and assist in designing a feasible ARP, the research literature that were selected was based on the methodology used and the effect considered by the researchers, the research evidence provided, and the relevancy of the information in regards to the current practices.
Slavin and Karweit (1985) claim that the decades of tracking have failed to accrue academic achievement benefits for students. Thus, they focused their research on dealing with heterogeneity by studying the modes of instruction on overall student achievements in mathematics. They conducted two separate experiments with 345 students from grade 4-6 and 480 students in grades 3-5 in the US. A statistical analysis of the pre and post-standardised tests and attitude scales for self-concept in mathematics, inferred that within-class ability grouping had positive effect on mathematics achievements. Their two, eight-item attitude scale included questions like:
“This math class is the best part of my school day”; “I’m proud of my math work in this class”; and “I worry a lot when I have to take a math test” (Slavin & Karweit, 1985, p. 356).
Slavin and Karweit (1985) further noted that within-class ability grouping produces instructional effectiveness but this may be offset by the difficulty in managing multiple ability groups.
Tieso (2005), citing the dearth of research on curriculum revision, differentiation practices and grouping on students achievement in mathematics, conducted a study on 31 teachers and 645 students in year group 4-5 by collecting quantitative data from pre and post curriculum based tests. While reviewing effect sizes for various grouping arrangements, in previous research studies and meta-analysis published during the period 1982 to 1996, Tieso (2005) summarises that homogeneous within-class groupings have positive effect when compared to heterogeneous grouping. In their study, the pre-test data collected from textbooks and curricular-based tests instead of the norm-referenced test, due to the short focused curricular unit. While the teachers from control groups, within and between classes, were provided with strategies in teaching students with high levels of prior knowledge, providing challenging, complex and differentiated instructions, and managing different grouping arrangements. Using statistical analysis of variance and investigating using multivariate methods, Tieso (2005) reports that students experienced significantly higher mathematics achievement with a revised differentiated mathematics unit not only for a high level of prior knowledge but also for other (middle or average level of prior knowledge) students. Tieso (2005) goes on to summarise the three key implications to the current ARP, that a differentiated curriculum can affect students’ achievement, teachers need to be aware of their students’ cognitive abilities and their prior knowledge and finally, teachers’ need to stress on the students’ learning goals rather than behavioural objectives.
MacIntyre and Ireson (2002) examined, through quantitative research using standardised pre and post-testing, the relationships between mathematics achievement, self-concept and within-class ability grouping of 145 students in years 3-5. They studied the impact of misplacement on students’ self-concept using questionnaires and interviews with students. Findings indicated that teachers used formative assessments and social factors in determining groups, rather than standardised test scores. MacIntyre and Ireson (2002) research suggests that within-class ability grouping may do more harm; since misplacements in class-groups which is a frequent reality, reduces students’ self-concepts. However, they do agree that larger longitudinal studies may uncover evidence that is more convincing.
Slavin (1987) in the best-evidence synthesis, reviews the researches between the effects of within-class and between-class grouping on achievement of primary school students in the US; concluding that, for upper-primary students, the within-class grouping is most effective for mathematics when the group numbers are kept small. Similarly, a qualitative survey by Hallam et al. (2003) of primary schools in the UK was conducted to ascertain the implementation of different grouping practices for various curriculum subjects. Findings concluded that within-class grouping was the most prevalent arrangement and that mathematics is best taught in homogeneous grouping in upper primary years of 4-6. It is interesting to note that head teachers and teachers in the UK had not given into the code of grouping policies of setting as prescribed by the government (Hallam et al., 2003). However, (Hallam et al., 2003) citing recent studies conducted by Ireson and Hallam (1999); Wiliam and Bartholomew (2001) aknowledge that setting itself does not raise standards, but can have detrimental effect on students’ personal and social development. This vindicated the position taken by the UK head teachers and teachers in the study conducted by Hallam et al. (2003).
Lamb and Fullarton (2002) in their comparative study of data from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) for grade 8 students, from Australia and the US, employed statistical methods; to ascertain the effect of student, classroom and school factors on mathematics achievements. They concluded that classroom effects such as, student grouping practices, which shape classroom composition, had modest effects on mathematics achievements while promoting differences and inhibiting progress of streamed lower ability students. Though this study uses grade 8 students, it is significant in in revealing relevant implications for consideration in hypothesising the effects in the current ARP.
Lou (2013) in the International Guide to Student Achievement cites research evidence and meta-analysis of nearly 200 independent studies conducted since 1987 and recommends that grouping, whether homogenous or heterogeneous is better than no grouping. Moreover, within-class grouping has positive affects for all students; however, for low-ability students heterogeneous grouping is more effective. The most important aspect that is highlighted by Lou (2013) is that for maximum effectiveness of within-class grouping, it has to be coupled with the adaptation of instructional methods such as collaborative and cooperative learning materials for small-group learning. These studies focus on the independent variable of homogeneous ability grouping in school and within-class, on the effect on achievement, attitudes and self-concept of students.
Conclusion
Matthews et al. (2013), Abrami et al. (2000), Kulik and Kulik (1987), (1992), Slavin (1987), Slavin and Karweit (1985) agree that within-class ability grouping had positive effects on mathematics achievements. While Meijnen and Guldemond (2002), Kutnick et al. (2002), Lou et al. (1996) and Slavin (1987) agreeing, to within-class ability grouping, further conclude that mixed-ability groupings are beneficial for low-achieving students.
Similarly, Lou (2013), Tieso (2005) and Lou et al. (1996) agree that for maximum effectiveness of within-class grouping should be coupled with differentiated teaching and modifications to teaching materials.
Adding another dimension to the research, Meijnen and Guldemond (2002), and Leonard (2001) reveals race and gender influences the group cohesiveness and its effectiveness.
While in disagreement, MacIntyre and Ireson (2002), and Oakes (1985) suggests that within-class ability grouping reduces students’ self-concepts. Whereas, Hallam et al. (2003), Wiliam and Bartholomew (2001), and Ireson and Hallam (1999) contend that setting can have unfavourable affects students’ personal and social development. Moreover, Lamb and Fullarton (2002) concede that though grouping has modest benefits, it promotes differences between students.
While the literature review, informs the setting-up of the ARP and collection of pre-post data and its analysis, it is also possible to hypothesise the effects of within-class grouping. Moreover, it also informs the setting-up, composition, instructional strategies and differentiation of curriculum materials for optimal results in mathematics achievements in the target group.
References
Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., & Spence, J. C. (2000). Why Should We Group Students Within-Class for Learning? Educational Research and Evaluation (An International Journal on Theory and Practice), 6(2), 158-179. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1076/1380-3611%28200006%296%3A2%3B1-E%3BF158
Curran, P. J., Obeidat, K., & Losardo, D. (2010). Twelve Frequently Asked Questions About Growth Curve Modeling. PMC US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, 11(2), 121-136. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131138/
Hallam, S., Ireson, J., Lister, V., Chaudhury, I. A., & Davies, J. (2003). Ability Grouping Practices in the Primary School: A survey. Educational Studies, 29(1), 69-83. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080%2F03055690303268
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (1999). Raising standards: is ability grouping the answer? Oxf. Rev. Educ., 25(3), 343-358. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/215841220?accountid=10382
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. (1992). Meta-Analytic Findings on Grouping Programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73-77. Retrieved from http://gcq.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/content/36/2/73.full.pdf+html
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. l. (1987). Effects of Ability Grouping on Student Achievement. Equity & Excellence in Education, 23(1), 22-30. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1080/.VBR5NPnohjM
Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., & Baines, E. (2002). Pupil Groupings in Primary School Classrooms: Sites for Learning and Social Pedagogy? British Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 187-206. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/stable/1501973
Lamb, S., & Fullarton, S. (2002). Classroom and School Factors Affecting Mathematics Achievement: A Comparative Study of Australia and the United States Using TIMSS. Australian Journal of Education, 46(2), 154-171. Retrieved from http://aed.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/content/46/2/154.full.pdf+html
Leonard, J. (2001). How Group Composition Influenced the Achievement of Sixth-Grade Mathematics Students. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 3(2), 175-200. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/10986065.2001.9679972
Lou, Y. (2013). Within Class Grouping- Arguments, Practices, and Reaserch Evidence. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. E. M. Anderman (Ed.) In Hattie, J., & Anderman, E. M. (2013). International Guide to Student Achievement. (pp. 167-169). Retrieved from http://curtin.eblib.com.au.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1114642
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., & et al. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423-458. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/214115187?accountid=10382#
MacIntyre, H., & Ireson, J. (2002). Within-class ability grouping: Placement of pupils in groups and self-concept. British Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 249-263. Retrieved fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/10.1080/01411920120122176/pdf
Matthews, M. S., Ritchotte, J. A., & McBee, M. T. (2013). Effects of schoolwide cluster grouping and within-class ability grouping on elementary school students’ academic achievement growth. High Ability Studies, 24(2), 81-97. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1080/.VB66KPnohjM
Meijnen, G. W., & Guldemond, H. (2002). Grouping in Primary Schools and Reference Processes. An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 8(3), 229-248. http://dx.doi.org/:10.1076/edre.8.3.229.3857
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping Track. How Schools Structure Inequality: In Coffman, C. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985. NASSP Bulletin, 69(484), 130-131. Retrieved from http://bul.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/content/69/484/130
Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., Adams, C. M., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Dixon, F. A., & Cross, T. L. (2011). The Effects of Clustering and Curriculum on the Development of Gifted Learners’ Math Achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,(4), 569-594. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/871112921?accountid=10382
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in Elementary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/stable/1170460
Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. L. (1985). Effects of Whole Class, Ability Grouped, and Individualized Instruction on Mathematics Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 22(3), 351-367. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/stable/1162968
Sukhnandan, L., & Lee, B. (1999). Streaming, Setting and Grouping by Ablility. NFER. Retrieved from http://www.nfer.co.uk/publications/SSG01/SSG01.pdf
Tieso, C. (2005). The Effects of Grouping Practices and Curricular Adjustments on Achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 60-89,110. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/222362157/fulltextPDF?accountid=10382
Wiliam, D., & Bartholomew, H. (2001). The influence of ability grouping practices on student achievement in mathematics: paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Journal, 12-15 September, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.