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.