Post on 31-Mar-2015
transcript
Ability Grouping:Helpful or Harmful?
Mary Ann Swiatek, Ph.D.Licensed Psychologistswiatek@rcn.com
Definitions Ability grouping: Placing students
in learning groups with others of similar aptitude; can vary by subject; can be flexible over time
Tracking: Assignment of students to one group for all subjects, based on a measure of general ability (e.g., IQ)
The Arguments
For: Helps teachers focus the level of the presentation
Against: Reduces expectations of
lower-ability students Discriminates against minority
students Promotes inequity
The Evidence: Meta-analyses
Quantitative summaries of research results
General steps: Stipulate methodological criteria a
study must meet to be included Locate as many qualifying studies
as possible Quantify the results of the studies
in terms of effect sizes
The Evidence: Meta-analyses
Effect size: A common metric allowing
comparison of results across studies
Quantifies magnitude of results in standard deviation units
Range: -3.00 to +3.00 (approximately)
The Evidence: Meta-analyses
Classification: Below 0.2: Negligible 0.2 to 0.5: Small 0.5 to 0.8: Medium Above 0.8: Large
The Evidence: Meta-analyses
Problems with the evidence Some meta-analyses use only
studies that randomly assign students to groups
Some meta-analyses discount findings if curriculum is modified for different groups
The Results:Gifted Students
Gifted students achieve better in ability groups In elementary school:
28 studies of achievement test scores: Average ES = .19 (.49 in 9 studies of programs designed for G&T, .07 in 19 studies of broad programs)
The Results:Gifted Students
In high school: 51 studies with “measured
outcomes” had average ES = .10 (.33 in the 14 studies of classes designed for G&T students, .02 in 33 studies of broad programs)
The Results:Gifted Students
Elementary and high school together: 78 studies of achievement test
scores Average ES = .15 For honors classes (N = 25),
ES = .33 For “XYZ grouping” ES = .12
for high ability students
The Results:Gifted Students
23 studies of homogeneous vs. heterogeneous classrooms Standardized achievement tests:
ES = 0.4 for science, social studies, and total
ES <0.25 for math, reading, and writing
ES = 0.4 favoring heterogeneous classes for languages
The Results:Gifted Students Bigger effects for teacher-made
tests All favored homogeneous
classes ES = 1.0 for math and science “Large” ES for English and
social studies
The Results:Low-Ability Students
Low-ability students’ academic achievement in ability groups is equal to or better than in heterogeneous settings.
Effect sizes are negligible to small (-0.02 to 0.29).
The Results:Low-Ability Students In high school:
4 studies with “measurable outcomes:” Average ES “near zero” for programs designed for academically deficient students
The Results:Low-Ability Students In elementary and high
school together: For remedial programs (N = 4),
ES = .14 In XYZ grouping (N = 39), ES
was “virtually zero”
The Results: Across Ability Groups
Elementary school:
Effects near zero for “compre-hensive ability grouping”
14 studies (1959-1968) of “Joplin plan” grouping in reading: ES = .45
8 studies of within-class grouping for math: ES = .32
The Results: Across Ability Groups
High School 29 studies of tracking: No
effect
The Results:Cooperative Groups
In middle school: High achieving students
achieve more in hetero-geneous cooperative groups than in individual learning?
…but more in homogeneous than heterogeneous cooperative groups?
The Results:Ability Grouping vs.
Tracking Remember definitions
Ability grouping is associated with increased performance; tracking is not
The Results:Curriculum Modification
Effectiveness of ability grouping corresponds to the extent to which curriculum is modified to meet the needs of the group
The Results:Social/Emotional
Adjustment Often cannot be subject to meta-analysis Many studies do not include
these variables Those that do are not
consistent in what variables are included or how they are measured
The Results:Social/Emotional Adjustment
Most meta-analyses find negligible effects of grouping In elementary school:
9 studies of “self-esteem(apparently global)
Average ES = .06 No separate data for gifted
students (probably due to small N)
The Results:Social/Emotional Adjustment
In high school: 15 studies of “self-concept”
Average ES = .01 No separate data on gifted
students 8 studies of attitudes toward
subject matter: ES = .37 11 studies of attitudes toward
school: Average ES = .09
The Results:Social/Emotional Adjustment
In elementary and high school together: 24 studies of “self-esteem”
Average ES “near zero” Honors classes (N = 6) ES
“trivial” XYZ programs: ESs negligible Remedial programs (N = 3):
ES = .33
The Results:Social/Emotional Adjustment
Subset (not clear how many) of 23 studies of homogeneous vs. heterogeneous classrooms ES = 0.09 for self-concept ES = -0.02 for creativity “Positive effect” (ES not
specified) for attitude toward school
ES = -.46 for attitude toward peers
So, In General… Gifted students achieve better in
ability groups when curriculum is modified for them
Low-ability students achieve about the same with or without grouping
Ability grouping for gifted students is supported by research; tracking is not
So, In General… Homogeneous cooperative
groups may be more effective than heterogeneous ones.
Grouping typically is found to have no effect on social/emotional adjustment
References Goldring, E. B. (1990). Assessing the
status of information on classroom organizational frameworks for gifted students. Journal of Educational Research, 83(6), 313-326.
Kulik, C-L. C. & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 415-428.
References Kulik, C-L. C. & Kulik, J. A. (1984).
Effects of ability grouping on elementary school pupils: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 255329)
References Kulik, C-L. C. (1985, August). Effects
of inter-class ability grouping on achievement and self-esteem. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 263492)
References
Neber, H., Finsterwald, M., & Urban, N. (2001). Cooperative learning with gifted and high-achieving students: A review and meta-analysis of 12 studies. High Ability Studies, 12(2), 199-214.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.
References Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement
effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471-499.