ROBERT E. SLAVIN

Synthesis of Researchon Grouping in Elementary

and Secondary SchoolsCertain arrangements appear to be instructionally

effective for students, but the psychologicaldrawbacks may offset any advantages.

O ne of the most difficult deci sions sch<K)l administrators have to make, yet one of the

most important, is how to group stu dents for instruction Should students he assigned to classes heteroge- neously or according to ahility? What kinds of grouping strategies, if any, should he used within c lasses? Should schwls he departmentalized, self-con tained, or some mix of the two? These questions are at the heart of school and classrix>m organization, and de- hates ahout them have gone on since the 19th century.

Decisions ahout grouping may he made on many grounds, from con cerns ahout students' self-concepts and behavior to concerns ahout equity to concerns ahout efficiency or teacher morale However, any discussion of grouping must consider the effects of alternative grouping plans on student achievement My purpose here is to summarize what is known ahout the achievement effects of various forms of grouping at the elementary and secondary levels I draw primarily on a 'best evidence synthesis' of research

on ahility grouping in elementary schools (Slavin )98"7a,b), plus addi tional evidence concerning ahility grouping at the junior and senior high school levels and evidence relating to alternatives to ability grouping at the elementary and secondary levels

Cooperative feczmmg finoufK. in utndiheterogeneous students uof* foulard a grotqi x°al. are an example of Kithm-class ability

SEPTEMBER 198S 67

Background and Rationale for GroupingThe study of alternative grouping ar rangements has a long and distin guished pedigree. As early as 1929, Luther Purdom referred to the "great mass of literature" on the topic dating hack to 1917. He complained that grouping decisions were too often based on personal impressions rather than hard evidence a complaint that remains applicable 60 years later The considerable interest in research on grouping in the 1920s was stimulated in part by a concern that since schools were serving a larger number of im migrants and children of the poor, they needed to differentiate instruc tion to meet the needs of a more diverse student body (see Billett 1932). This too has a distinctly modern ring.

The principal rationale for various forms of grouping has been basically the same since grouping was first pro posed. Ability grouping exists to deal with one central fact of mass educa tion: students differ in knowledge, skills, developmental stage, and learn ing rate. If a teacher is to present a lesson to a class, then it seems intu itively obvious that the lesson should be neither too easy nor too difficult for the students. If the class is highly het erogeneous, then one lesson will of necessity be easier than would be opti mal for some students and more dif ficult than would be optimal for others. For the sake of instructional efficiency, students should be grouped so that they will profit from one lesson.

Yet virtually every means of group ing students by ability or performance level has drawbacks that may be seri ous enough to offset any advantages Ability grouping plans may stigmatize low achievers, put them into classes or groups for which teachers have low expectations, or lead to the creation of academic elites (Persell 1977, Oakes 1985). Grouping may doom children who are not in the top tracks to sec ond-class instruction and, ultimately, second-class futures. It may deprive students of the examples and stimula tion provided by heterogeneous classes. Methods of dealing with stu-

Instructionally effective cooperative learning methods provide group rewards based on die individual learning of all group members.

dent heterogeneity within the class room, such as use of reading or math groups, create problems in terms of the management of multiple groups and reduction in the direct instruction received by individual students.

Types of GroupingThe principal types of grouping ar rangements fall into two major catego ries: between-class and within-class. Between-class plans are school-level arrangements by which students are assigned to classes. Several means of assigning students to classes by ability fall into this category, as does depart mentalization. Within-class grouping arrangements may attempt to reduce the heterogeneity of instructional groups, as in the use of within-class ability grouping or mastery learning. Finally, cooperative learning is a with in-class grouping strategy that uses heterogeneous rather than homoge neous subgroups.

The following sections define the various grouping plans and summa rize the research on each.

Between-Class Ability GroupingPerhaps the most controversial form of grouping is assignment of students to groups according to ability or per formance Arguments about the desir ability of between-class ability group ing have raged from the 1920s (e.g., Miller and Otto 1930) to the present (e.g., Good and Marshall 1984; C.-L.

Kulik and J. A. Kulik 1982, 1984). Pro ponents have argued that ability grouping lets high achievers move rapidly and gives low achievers attain able goals and extra help. Opponents have countered that ability grouping is unfair to low achievers, citing the problems of poor peer models, low teacher expectations, and slow instruc tional pace.

Yet ability grouping is not a single practice but has many fundamentally different forms that have different ed ucational as well as psychological ef fects. The most important forms of between-class ability grouping are dis cussed in the following sections.

Ability-grouped class assignment. In many elementary schools, students are assigned to self-contained classes on the basis of a general achievement or ability measure This method might produce, for example, a high-achiev ing 4th grade class, an average-achiev ing class, and a low-achieving class, with students assigned to classes ac cording to some combination of a composite achievement measure, 1Q scores, and/or teacher judgment Stu dents remain with the same ability- grouped classes for all academic sub jects. At the secondary level, ability- grouped class assignment usually means that students are assigned to a particular track within which they re ceive all, or almost all, instruction (e.g., advanced, general, and remedial or academic, general, and vocational)

The achievement effects of ability- grouped class assignment (compared to heterogeneous grouping) are es sentially zero I identified 14 method ologically adequate studies of this practice at the elementary level and found the median effect size on stan dardized achievement measures to be approximately 00 (Slavin 1987a) Re search at the junior high school level also fails to find consistent positive effects of between-class ability group ing (Borg 1965, Stoakes 1964, Peterson 1966). High school research is rela tively rare, but even at this level con trolled studies find few benefits of tracking (Borg and Perpich 1966, Bil lett 1932, Purdom 1929). There is some evidence that high achievers

68 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

may gain from ability grouping at the expense of low achievers (e.g., Borg 1965, Flair 1965, Tobin 1966), but most studies find no such trend (see, e.g., Morgenstern 1963, Peterson 1966, Bremer 1958. Hartill 1936) Overall, the effects of ability grouping cluster closely around zero for students of all achievement levels

One probable reason that ability- grouped class assignment has little ef fect on student achievement is that this plan typically has only a limited impact on the heterogeneity of the class. For example, Goodlad (1960) estimated that dividing a group of elementary students into two ability groups on the hasis of IQ reduced total variability in each class by only 7 percent. With three groups, heterogeneity was re duced by 17 percent, still not likely to be enough to have a measurable im pact Even though a student's perform ance in any one subject is correlated with performance in other subjects, this correlation is far from perfect. This means that grouping students on any one criterion is sure to leave sub stantial heterogeneity in any specific skill domain On the other hand, as signing students to "high" and "low" ability classes may have a stigmatizing

The mechanisms by which different grouping plans may have their effects are not at all clear. Yet we do know enough to dispel the notion that simply grouping students by ability will in itself accelerate their achievement.

effect on low achievers and may evoke low expectations for student achieve ment and behavior even if the group ing has a minimal impact on class heterogeneity Thus, ability-grouped class assignment may be enough to produce psychological drawbacks but does not do enough to reap the poten tial educational benefits of reducing student heterogeneity in any particular skill Nonetheless, it is interesting that ability grouping is ineffective even at the secondary level, where student heterogeneity may be extreme

Regrouping for reading and/or mathematics Another commonly used ability grouping arrangement has stu dents remain in heterogeneous classes most of the day but regroup for se lected subjects. For example, three 4th grade classes in an elementary school might have reading scheduled at the same time. At reading time, students might leave their heterogeneous home rooms and go to a class organized according to reading levels At the secondary level, students might be grouped for some subjects, but not for others.

Regrouping for selected subjects has three important advantages over ability-grouped class assignment. First, students remain in a heterogeneous setting mast of the day, so they are likely to identify with that group, thereby reducing the labeling effect of all-day grouping. Second, students are grouped solely on the basis of their achievement in the particular subject, not by general achievement or ability- level, so a meaningful reduction in heterogeneity in the skill being taught is possible. Third, elementary re grouping plans tend to be more flex ible in operation than ability grouped class assignment, because changing students between reading or mathe matics classes is less disruptive than changing basic class assignments For this reason, any errors in assignment can be easily remedied, and any changes in student performance level can be accommodated with a change in grouping.

The limited research on regrouping plans suggests that regrouping can be instructionally effective if: (1) instruc-

There is some evidence that high achievers may gain from ability grouping at the expense of low achievers, but most studies find no such trend. Overall, the effects of ability grouping cluster closely around zero for students of all achievement levels.

tional level and pace are completely adapted to student performance level, and (2) the regrouping is done for only one or two subjects so that stu dents stay in heterogeneous place ments mast of the day (Slavin 1987b) Studies at the elementary level that met these conditions have generally found positive effects on student achievement in reading (Berkun et al 1966). in mathematics (Provus 1960), and in reading and mathematics taken together (Balow and Ruddell 1963, Morris 1969) On the other hand, when regrouping has been done in elementary schools without adapting the pace or level of instruction (Mases 1966, Davis and Tracy 1963) or in more than two different subjects (Koontz 1961). no benefits have been found At the junior high school level, grouping in one subject has been no more successful than ability-grouped class assignment (Bicak 1962, Fick 1963), and similar results have been

SEPTEMBER 1988 69

obtained in high school studies (Drews 1963, Holy and Sutton 1930, Thompson 1974).

Joplin Plan. One interesting form of regrouping applicable primarily to el ementary schools is the Joplin Plan (Floyd 1954), in which students are regrouped for reading without regard for grade levels. That is, a reading class at 4th grade-first semester level (4-1) might contain some 3rd, some 4th, and some 5th graders One important coasequence of this grouping plan is that it allows for the reduction or elimination of within-class grouping for reading, as students in each read ing class may all be at the same read ing level Thus, teachers can spend more of the reading class time doing direct instruction, reducing the time during which students must do unsu- pervised follow-up seatwork.

Effects of the Joplin Plan and closely- related forms of nongraded plans have been quite positive overall In a recent review, I (Slavin 1987a) estimated the median effect size for Joplin and Jop- lin-like nongraded plans at +44 for reading achievement, and one study

One drawback of witbin-class ability grouping is that u'hiie the teacher instructs one group, the other students in the class U'ork U'ithout direct supervision

(Hart 1962) found similar effects for mathematics Two of the studies I re viewed (Morgan and Stucker 1960, Hillson et al. 1964) used random as signment of students and teacher to treatments, and most of the others were good-quality matched equivalent studies.

Nongraded plans. Nongraded plans (Goodlad and Anderson 1963) are el ementary grouping arrangements in which formal grade levels are abol ished in favor of flexible cross-age groupings for different subjects. Many different forms of nongrading have been evaluated. In some cases (e.g., Hillson et al. 1964, Ingram 1960) where nongrading is done in reading or mathematics only, it is essentially identical to the Joplin Plan At the other extreme, nongraded plans may involve many subjects, constant and flexible regrouping within and be tween classes, extensive use of individ ualized instruction, team teaching, and other features more in line with forms of the open classroom than with the still quite traditional Joplin Plan (see, e.g., Bowman 1971, Ross 1967)

I found achievement effects of com prehensive nongraded plans to be in consistent but generally positive (Slavin 1987a, b). However, most of the studies that failed to find positive effects of nongraded plans either took place in laboratory schools (e.g., Otto 1963, Ross 1967) or found few imple mentation differences between non- graded and traditional programs (e.g., Carbone 1961, Hopkins et al. 1965). Studies in regular classrooms in which the nongraded program was used con scientiously usually found positive ef fects on student achievement (e.g., Bowman 1971, Machiele 1965).

Gifted programs G ifted programs may be offered in only one subject (often mathematics), or separate classes for high achieving or otherwise exceptional students may be provided Most research on special programs for the gifted contains a serious systematic bias Much of this research (eg., Simp- son and Martison 1961) compares stu dents in gifted programs to students in the same schools who did not partici pate in the gifted program, matching on IQ or other measures. However, if

EmiCATioNAi. LEADRRSHIP

two students have IQs of 130 and one is accepted for a gifted program while the other is rejected, then we can he sure that there were other factors, such as motivation, achievement, and so on, that also differentiate these stu dents, all of which are likely to work to the advantage of the students accepted for the special program. Nonran- domed comparisons across schools with and without gifted programs (e.g.. West and Sievers 1960, Baldauf 1959) are somewhat better, but also suffer from this systematic selection bias Studies of acceleration (see J. A. Kulik and C.-L Kulik 1984), exposing gifted students to higher levels of in formation in some subjects or skip ping them to higher grades, share the same problems of selection bias, with the additional problem that the accel erated students are exposed to mate rial not seen by regular students, mak ing comparisons difficult.

The literature on gifted programs at the elementary level is small, incon elusive, and methodologically inade quate for the reasons described above and others A few studies have re ported achievement benefits of special programs for the gifted (e.g., West and Sievers 1960, Bell 1957, Atkinson and OConnor 1963), while others found no significant advantages (e.g., Baldauf 1959, Cluff 1964, Becker 1963). Gener ally, acceleration programs (e.g., pro viding Algebra 1 to 6th or 7th graders) produce better achievement outcomes than enrichment programs (see Fox 1979, lustman 1954, Passow et al 1961)

Special education Assignment to full- or part-time special education programs for learning problems can also be seen as a form of between- class ability grouping. Unfortunately, most research on the efficacy of spe cial education has the same type of methodological flaws characteristic of studies of gifted programs. Matched comparisons between students as signed to special education and those remaining in regular classes are bi ased toward regular class assignment because of the likelihood of systematic differences between students of, for example, the same 1Q assigned to reg-

Effects of the Joplin Plan and closely related forms of nongraded plans have been quite positive overall.

ular or special classes (Madden and Slavin 1983).

However, there are a few random ized studies at the elementary level of special education vs. mainstreaming (regular class placement) for students with moderate academic handicaps, such as learning disabilities and mild retardation For example, Goldstein and colleagues (1966) found that stu dents randomly assigned to a high- quality special education program learned no more than did students who remained in regular classes. Cal houn and Elliott (1977) found that mildly retarded and emotionally dis turbed students randomly assigned to regular classes that used individual ized instruction gained Substantially more in achievement than did stu dents who experienced the same indi vidualized program with the same teacher in self-contained special edu cation classes. Overall, evidence from studies of special education and main- streaming supports accommodating student differences within the regular classrooms rather than separating stu dents into special classes (Madden and Slavin 1983).

Summon' and conclusions: be tu'een-class ability' grouping Evidence from studies of various forms of be tween-class ability grouping in ele

mentary schools indicates that achievement effects depend on the types of programs evaluated In gen eral, ability grouping plans are benefi cial for student achievement when they incorporate the following fea tures (adapted from Slavin 198~Ti):

1 Students remain in heteroge neous classes most of the day and are regrouped by performance level only in such subjects as reading and math ematics in which reducing heteroge neity is particularly important

2 The grouping plan reduces het erogenein in the specific skill being taught

3 Group assignments are flexible and are frequently reassessed

4. Teachers adapt their level and pace of instruction in regrouped classes to accommodate students' lev els of readiness and learning rates

The between-class grouping plan that most completely incorporates these four principles is the Joplin Plan Evidence on the Joplin Plan strongly supports the effectiveness of this ar rangement and of within-grade re grouping plans and nongraded plans that most resemble it

In contrast, ability-grouped class as signment, special programs for the gifted, and special education for stu dents with learning problems do not generally meet the four criteria Typi cally, they segregate students all or most of the day. are based on general ability or achievement rather than skill in a specific subject, and tend to be highly inflexible Teachers may or may not adjust their level and pace of in struction to adapt to students needs in these plans Evidence at all lei-els shows no benefits for ability-grouped class assignment or special education assignment and only inconsistent and flawed evidence in favor of special programs for the gifted

DepartmentalizationOne between-class grouping plan that is nearly universal in secondary schools and increasingly seen in ele mentary schools is some form of de partmentalization, in which teachers teach one or a few (but not all) sub jects to multiple class groups At the

SEPn-MBF.R 1988 71

The practice of aligning students to homogeneous subgroups for instruction uitbin the class is penvKuv in elementary reading instruction

secondary level, departmentalization usually implies that students change classes for all subjects. Alternatively, in elementary or middle schools, one teacher might see classes for more than one, but not all subjects; for ex ample, teaching combined reading and language or mathematics and sci ence blocks. Semi-departmentalized plans may have all teachers teach a set of subjects to students in their home room groups in the morning, while other subjects are departmentalized in the afternoon.

The main advantage of departmen talization is that it allows teachers to specialize, teaching subjects they are most able and willing to teach How ever, departmentalization risks diffus ing responsibility for individual chil dren, making it difficult for a student to identify with a single caring adult. In

Ability grouping is ineffective even at the secondary level, where student heterogeneity may be extreme.

elementary schools, it may represent an unhealthy intrusion of the "subject- centered" .secondary organization into the more typically "child-centered" el ementary program

Unfortunately, there is very little re search on departmentalization. How ever, that which does exist fails to support the practice. Ward (1970) found that students in grades 4-6 learned reading and science signifi cantly better in self-contained classes than in departmentalized classes, and there were no differences in mathe matics and social studies Hosley (1954) also found that 6th graders' achievement was higher in self-con tained K-6 schools than in semi-de partmentalized junior high schools. Jackson (1953) found no achievement differences between departmentalized and nondepartmentalized plans at the elementary or junior high school lev els, and Spivak (1956) found higher achievement for 7th and 8th graders in self-contained than in departmental-

Highlights of Research on Grouping in Elementary and Secondary Schools

Reviewers of the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., Borg 1965, NEA 1968, Passow 1962, Esposito 1973) often failed to distinguish between different types of grouping plans (i.e., between-class and within-class), combining studies of programs for the gifted with comprehensive between-class ability grouping, regrouping for selected subjects, and within-class ability grouping. Yet when we separate the research on these different plans, the picture becomes relatively clear.

Wrthrn-Cbu Grouping• Little methodologically adequate research exists on mastery learning at the elementary

level, and research has provided little support for this practice, despite its widespread use (Slavin 1987c).

• A great deal of research is available on cooperative learning methods, which involve students working in small, heterogeneous learning groups. If the groups are rewarded on the basis of the individual learning of all group members, then cooperative learning can consistently increase student achievement in the elementary grades (Slavin in press)

Between-CUu Grouping• Wholesale between-class grouping plans, such as ability-grouped class assignment,

special classes for the gifted, and self-contained special education, do not generally affect student achievement One exception: acceleration programs may benefit gifted students.

• Many elementary schools have introduced departmentalization to enable teachers to specialize in their strongest or favorite subjects. The advent of the middle school has also introduced departmentalization to students at earlier ages than was once the case. The small amount of research comparing departmentalized and self-contained arrangements for students in the upper elementary and middle grades recommends against early departmentalization.• Ability-grouping plans such as the /op/in Plan and certain forms of nongraded and

regrouping plans can be instructionally effective. They all: (1) leave students in heterogeneous classes most of the school day, (2) regroup only for reading and/or mathematics according to student performance in these skills, (3) flexibly change student placements, and (4) adapt the level and pace of instruction to the needs and preparedness of the regrouped classes. (Within-class ability grouping in mathematics also meets these four criteria and also increases student achievement.)• Ability grouping can be a useful tool in elementary school organization; but it must be

used sparingly, precisely, and with careful planning if it is to enhance student achievement.

—Robert E. Slavin

72 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

ized settings Only one study, a dis serration by Case ' 1971), discovered an achievement benefit of depart mentalization, comparing 5th graders in a new middle school to matched control students remaining in self- contained elementary classrooms. Becker (1987) found the achieve ment effects of departmentalization in 6th grades to vary by socioeco- nomic status. That is, students from the wealthiest backgrounds gained slightly, middle-income students lost slightly, and lower class students lost substantially from departmentalized arrangements.

Within-Class Ability GroupingWithin-class ability grouping is the practice of assigning students to ho mogeneous subgroups for instruction within the class In general, each sub group receives instruction at its own level and progresses at its own rate Within class ability grouping is virtu ally universal in elementary reading instruction and is common in elemen tary mathematics, but it is rarely seen in secondary schools (Hallinan and Sorensen 1983, Barr and Dreeben 1983).

Within-class grouping plans gener ally conform to the four requirements for effective ability grouping proposed earlier They involve only reading and/ or mathematics, leaving students in relatively heterogeneous classes the rest of the school day They group students in specific rather than general skills; and, at least in principle, within- class groupings are easy to change. Most teachers do adapt their level and pace of instruction to meet students' needs (Barr and Dreeben 1983). How ever, within-class ability grouping in troduces a problem not characteristic of between-class grouping plans: man agement of multiple groups When the teacher is instructing one reading group, for example, the remaining stu dents must work independently on seatwork activities, which may be of questionable value (see Anderson et al. 1985). Supervising multiple groups and the transitions between them are major classroom management prob lems (Anderson et al 1979).

Methodologically adequate research on within-class ability grouping has unfortunately been limited to the study of mathematics grouping, per haps because few teachers would be willing/to participate in an experiment in which they had to teach heteroge neous classes without breaking stu dents into reading groups However, the research on within-class grouping in mathematics clearly supports this practice Every one of eight studies of within-class ability grouping in mathe matics that I identified (Slavin 1987a), including five randomed studies, fa vored the grouped treatment (median effect size = +34). Effects of within class grouping were somewhat higher for low achievers (median effect size = + .65) than for average and high achievers There was some trend for effects to be more positive when the number of ability groups was two or three rather than four.

Effects of within-class grouping on mathematics achievement cannot be assumed to hold for reading In math ematics, students need to work prob lems independently, so there is an ap-

Auihor's Note to EducMon

I am trying to locate schools at all levels mat are experimenting with alternatives to traditional ability grouping. If you know of such schools, please send a brief de scription to:

Ability GroupingCenter for Research on Elementary

and Middle Schools Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 21218

propriate place for independent seat- work The corresponding need for independent seatwork in reading is less compelling. The universality of within- class grouping in reading in North America provides at least some indica tion that this form of ability grouping is also iastrucnonalh- necessary, although it is interesting to note that European schools do not generally use this type of grouping in reading.

Mastery learning. Mastery learning is a form of within-class grouping in which grouping decisions are con stantly changed to reflect student per formance In group-based mastery leaming (Bloom 19^6, Block and Burns 19^6). students receive a lesson as a whole class and then take a for mative test Those whose test scores exceed a present mastery criterion (e.g., 80 percent) then do enrichment activities; those who do not achieve this criterion receive corrective in struction Group-based forms of mas tery learning are by far the most com monly used in elementary and second ary schools.

I recently reviewed the research on the achievement effects of group- based mastery learning (Slavin 1987c). In methodologically adequate studies of at least four weeks' duration, mas- ten- learning had no significant effect on standardized achievement mea sures and only moderate effects on experimental-made measures How ever, there are examples of successful continuous-progress forms of mastery learning, in which students proceed through a hierarchy of skills at their own rate and are frequently assessed and regrouped (see Slavin 198~?d).

Coopenuiiv learning Cooperative learning (Sharan 1980; Slavin 1983. in press) refers to various instructional methods in which students work in small heterogeneous learning groups toward .some son of group goal Co operative learning differs from within - class ability grouping not only in that cooperative learning groups are small and heterogeneous, but also in that these groups are expected to engage in a great deal of task-focused interac tion, such as studying together or com pleting group assignments Coopera

SEPTEMBER 1988

tive learning methods vary consider ably in their basic structures Some, such as Jigsaw Teaching (Aronson et al. 1978) and Group Investigation (Sharan and Sharan 1976) assign stu dents specific tasks with a larger group task. In others (e.g., Johnson and John son 1975) students work together to complete a common group worksheet or other group product. A third cate gory consists of methods in which students study together and are re warded on the basis of the achieve ment of all group members (e.g., De- Vries and Slavin 1978, Slavin 1983). For example, in Student Teams- Achievement Divisions, or STAD, stu dents are assigned to four-member heterogeneous teams. The teacher presents a lesson, and then students study worksheets together in their

Grouping may doom children who are not in the top tracks to second-class instruction and, ultimately, second-class futures.

teams, attempting to ensure that all team members master the material Finally, the students are individually quizzed, and teams are rewarded with certificates or other recognition based

on the average of their members' quiz scores.

The idea behind cooperative learn ing is that if students are rewarded on the basis of group or team perform ance, they will be motivated to help and encourage one another to achieve (Slavin 1983, in press). In a heteroge neous learning group, students among themselves are expected to be able to solve problems or organize material presented by the teacher and to trans mit the group's understanding to each individual

Research on cooperative learning in elementary schools has found that its effectiveness depends on how it is organized Instructionally effective co operative learning methods provide group rewards based on the individual learning of all group members Stu-

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTwith

LARRY LEZOTTELarry Lezotte is America's foremost authority on effective schools and school improvement His message to Educational Policy Makers and Administrators goes far beyond the identification of effective school correlates. He provides vivid and inspiring descriptions of the purposes of schooling, various approaches to school improvement and the need for equity in instructional programming. This 2 day institute is designed for: District Wide Supervisors Building and District Ad ministrators Board Members and Policy Makers

DATES: December - 7, 8, 9, 1988 (Begins 8:00 p.m. December 7th)

LOCATION: The Conference is located in beautiful San Antonio, Texas. Information about the training site and overnight lodging will be sent to you upon receipt of your registration

REGISTRATION FEE: $325.00 includes training, materials, and books.

OBJECTIVES: • Identify the essential components of effective schools. Identify the steps to School Improvement. Analyze various effective school im provement programs.

MAIL REGISTRATIONS TO: Teacher Effectiveness Associates 4993 April Day Garth Columbia, Maryland 21044

FOR INFORMATION CALL: 301 621 5151

REGISTRATION FORM

Name

Name You Prefer To Be Called .

Organization/System ______

Address______________

_ Position _

Phone . _ Registration fee of $325 or purchase order must accompany registration form.

74 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

dent Teams-Achievement Divisions (Slavin 1983), Teams-Games-Tourna ments (DeVries and Slavin 1978), Team Assisted Individualization (Slavin 1985), and related methods all provide group rewards based on the sum or average of individual student learning perfor mances If students wish to succeed as a group, then, they must easure that every group member has mastered the mate rial being studied Studies of these methods have consistently found that they increase student achievement in a variety of subject areas and grade levels (see Slavin in press)

A Matter of BalanceWhile there is much we can learn from the research on grouping, there is still much to understand. For example, ba sic questions about the effects of with in-class ability grouping in reading, of mastery learning, and of various forms of departmentalization remain unan swered. The mechanisms by which different grouping plans may have their effects are not at all clear

Yet we do know enough to dispel the notion that simply grouping stu dents by ability will in itself accelerate their achievement Certain forms of grouping may be effective as part of a coherent plan for adapting instruction to meet individual needs, but the costs and benefits of each form of grouping must be carefully weighed.D

References

Anderson, L. M , N. L. BruhakerJ Alleman Br(x>ks, and G G Duffy. "A Qualitative Study of Seatwork in First Grade Class rooms." Elementary- School journal 86 (1985): 123-140

Anderson, L M , C Evenson, andj Brophy "An Experimental Study of Effective Teaching in First-Grade Reading Groups " Elementary School /ournal 79 (1979) 193-223 "

Aronson. E , N Blaney. C Stephan.J Sikes. and M Snapp The Jigsaw Classroom Beverly Hills, Calif Sage, 1978

Atkinson, J W , and P O'Connor Effects of Ability Grouping in Schools Related to Individual Differences in Achievement- Related Motivation Final Report, Coop erative Research Project No. OE-2-ID- 024 Washington, DC U.S. Department of Health, 1963

Baldauf, R S A Comparison of the Extent of Educational Growth of Mentally Ad vanced Pupils in the Cedar Rapids Ex periment." loumal of Educational Re seorx* 52 (1959): 181-183

Balow, I H, and A K Ruddell The Effects of Three Types of Grouping on Achieve ment ." California Journal of Educa tional Research 1 4 (1963): 108-117.

Barr, R. and R Dreeben llou Schools Work Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1983

Becker. H J. Addressing the Needs of Dif ferent Groups of Early Adolescents: Ef fects of Varying School and Classroom Organizational Practices on Students from Different Social Backgrounds and Abilities Technical Report No 16 Balti more: The Johns llopkins University. Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools. 198~

Becker, L J "An Analysis of the Science and Mathematics Achievement of Gifted Sixth Grade Children Enrolled in Segre gated, Partially Segregated, and Non-Seg regated Classes." Doctoral diss., Syra cuse University, 1963

Bell, M E "A Comparative Study of Men tally Gifted Children Heterogeneously and Homogeneously Grouped." Doc toral diss., Indiana University, 1957

Berkun. M M , L W Swanson. and D M Sawyer. An Experiment on Homoge neous Grouping for Reading in Elemen tary Classes." Journal of Educational Research 59 (1966): 413-^14

Bicak, L J "Achievement in Eighth Grade Science by Heterogeneous and Homo geneous Classes." Doctoral diss.. Univer sity of Minnesota, 1962

Billett, R O The Administration and Su- penision of Homogeneous Grouping Columbus: Ohio State University Prefks. 1932

Block. J H, and R B Bums Mastery Learning." In Reiieu 1 of Research in Ed ucation, Vol 4, edited by L S Shulman Itasca. Ill: Peacock, 1976, pp 3-^49

Bloom, B. S Human Characteristics and School Learning New York McGraw- Hill. 1976

Borg, W R. Ability Grouping in the Public Schools: A Field Study " Journal of Ex perimental Education 34 (1965): 1-9"

Borg, W R. and T Perpich "Grouping of Slow Learning High School Pupils Journal of Secondary Education 4 1 (1966): 231-238.

Bowman, B I. "A Comparison of Pupil Achievement and Attitude in a Graded School with Pupil Achievement and Atti- tude in a Nongraded School 1968-69,

1969--Q School Years Dissertation Ah- stracts 32 (19"!) 86-A (I niversirv Micro films No -1-20. 958).

Bremer. N "First Grade Achievement un der Different Plans of Grouping." Ele mentary English 35 (1958): 324-326

Calhoun. G . and R Ellion "Self-Concept and Academic Achievement of Educable Retarded and Emotionally Disturbed Children Exceptional Children 44 (19 ): 3~9-380

Carbone. R F "A Comparison of Graded and Non-Graded Elementary Schools Elementary School loumal 62 (1961) 82-88

Case, D. A "A Comparatix^e Study of Fifth Graders in a New Middle School with Fifth Graders in Elementary Self-Con- tained Classrooms Dissertation Ah- stracts 32 (19~1): 86-A (University Micro- films No -1-16. ^0)

Cluff, J E "The Effect of Experimentation and Class Reorganization on the Scho lastic Achievement of Selected Gifted Sixth Grade Pupils in Wichila, Kansas Dissertation Abstracts 24 (1964) (Univer sity Microfilms No 64-10. 059)

Davis, 0 L, and N H Tracy Arithmetic Achievement and lnstructk>nal Group ing Arithmetic Teacher 1 0 (1963) 12-n.

DeVries. D L. and R E Slavin "Teams- Games-T(Xirnament: Review of Ten Classroom Experiments. " Journal of Re search and Deivlopment in Education 12 (19^8) 28-38

Drews, E M Student Abilities Grouping Patterns and Classroom Interaction Co operative Research Project No 608 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health. Education, and Welfare. 1963

Esposito, D "Homogeneous and Hetero geneous Ability Grouping: Principal Findings and Implications for Evaluating and Designing More Effective Educa tional Environments Revieu- of Educa tional Research 43 (19T3); 163-179

Fick, W W "The Effectiveness of Ability Grouping in Seventh Grade Core Classes Dissertation Abstracts 23 (1963): 2^53

Flair. M D "The Effect of Grouping on Achievement and Attitudes Toward Learning of First Grade Pupils ' Disser lotion Abstracts 25 (1965): 6430 (Univer sity Microfilms No. 65-03. 259)

Floyd, C "Meeting Childrens Reading Needs in the Middle Grades: A Prelimi nary Report Elementary Soboo/your- not 55 (1954): 99-103

Fox. L H "Progress for the Gifted and Talented: An Overview " In The Gifted

SEPTEMBER 1988

and Talented Their Education and De velopment, edited by A. H. Passow Chi cago: University of Chicago Press, 1979

Goldstein, H , J Moss, and J Jordan The Efficacy of Special Class Training on the Development of Mentally Retarded Chil dren Cooperative Research Project No 619, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1966

Cxxxl, T., and S. Marshall. "Do Students Learn More in I leterogeneous or I lomo- geneous Groups?' In Student Diversity and the Organization, Process, and Use of Instructional Croups in the Class room, edited by P. Peterson and I.. Cherry Wilkinson. New York: Academic Press,'1984.

G(xxilad,J. I. "Classroom Organization. In Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 3rd ed., edited by C W Harris New York; Macmillan, I960, pp. 221-225.

Goodlad, J I., and R. H Anderson The Nongraded Elementary School Rev ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1963.

Hallinan, M., and A. Sorensen. "The Forma tion and Stability of Instructional Groups." American Sociological Revieu' 48(1983): 839-851.

Hart, R. II "The Nongraded Primary School and Arithmetic." The Arithmetic Teacher 9 (1962): 130-133

Hartill, R. "Homogeneous Grouping as a Policy in the Elementary Schools in New York City Teachers College, Columbia Contributions to Education, #690. New York: Teachers College Press. 1936.

Hillson, M ,J C Jones,J. W Moore, and F. Van Devender "A Controlled Experi ment Evaluating the Effects of a Nongrad ed Organi/ation on Pupil Achievement Journal of Educational Research 57 (1964): 548-550.

Holy, T C., and D II Sutton "Ability Grouping in the Ninth Grade ' Educa tional Research Kulletin 9 ( 1930): 419- 422

Hopkins, K. D., O. A. Oldridge, and M. I. Williamson. "An Empirical Comparison of Pupil Achievement and Other Varia bles in Graded and Nongraded Classes." American Educational Research four- «a/2 (1965): 207-215.

Hosley, C T "learning Outcomes of Sixth Grade Pupils under Alternative Grade Organization Patterns." Dissertation Ab stracts 1 4 (1954): 490-491 (University Microfilms No. 7484).

Ingram, V. "Flint Evaluates Its Primary Cycle." Elementary School Journal 6 1 (I960): 76-80.

Jackson, J "The Effect of Classnx>m Orga nization and Guidance Practice upon the Personality Adjustment and Academic Growth of Students Journal of General Psychology 83 (1953); 159-170

Johnson, D W, and R. T Johnson Learn ing Together and Alone- Englewotxl Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975

Justman, J "Academic Achievement of In teliectually Gifted Accelerants and Non- accelerants in Junior High Sch<x>l." School Review 62 (1954): 142-150

Koontz, W F "A Study of Achievement as a Function of Homogeneous Grouping Journal of Experimental Education 30 (1961): 249-253.

Kulik, C-L, and J A Kulik "Effects of Ability Grouping on Secondary Sch<x)l Students: A Meta-analysis of Evaluation Findings American Educational Re search Journal 1 9 (1982): 415-428.

Kulik, C -I., and J A. Kulik "Effects of Ability Grouping on Elementary School Pupils: A Meta-analysis " Paper presented at the annual convention of the Ameri can Psychological Ass<x:iation, Toronto, August 1984.

Kulik, J A, and C-L Kulik "Effects of Accelerated Instruction on Students Review of Educational Research 54 (1984): 409-425

Machiele, R. B. "A Preliminary Evaluation of the Non-Graded Primary at Leal School, L'rbana." Illinois School Revieu' 1 (1965): 20-24.

Madden, N A., and R. E. Slavin "Main streaming Students with Mild Academic Handicaps: Academic and S<xial Outcomes." Review of Educational Re search 53 (1983): 519-569.

Miller. W. S., and H. J Otto "Analysis of Experimental Studies in I lomogeneous Grouping Journal of Educational Re search 2 1 (1930): 95-102.

Morgan, E F, and G R Stucker "The Joplin Plan of Reading vs. a Traditional Method ' Journal of Educational Psy chology 5 1 (1960): 69-73

Morgenstern, A. "A Comparison of the Effects of I leterogeneous (Ability) Grouping on the Academic Achievement and Personal-Social Adjustment of Sixth Grade Children." Dissertation Abstracts 23 (1963): 1054 (University Microfilms No. 63-6560)

Morris, V. P. "An Evaluation of Pupil Achievement in a Nongraded Primary Plan after Three and also Five Years of Instruction." Dissertation Abstracts 29 (1969): 3809-A (University Microfilms No. 69-7352).

Moses, P J "A Study of Inter-class Ability Grouping on Achievement in Reading " Dissertation Abstracts 26 (1966): 4342.

National Education Association. Ability Grouping Research Summary Washing ton, D.C: NEA, 1968.

Oakes, J Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality New Haven, Conn Yale University Press, 1985

Otto, 11 J Nongradedness: An Elementary School Evaluation. Austin: University of Texas, 1963

Passow, A II "The Maze of Research on Ability Grouping' Educational horum 26 ( 1962): 281-288.

Passow, A. H , M I. Goldberg, and F R Link. "Enriched Mathematics for Gifted Junior High Sch<x>l Students." Educa tional Leadership 1 8 (1961): 442^48

Persell, C. Education and Inequality: The Roots and Results of Stratification in America's Schools. New York: Free Press, 1977.

Peterson, R 1. "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Ability Grouping in Grades 7 and 8 " Unpublished d<x:toral diss., University of Minnesota, 1966

Provus, M. M. "Ability Grouping in Arith metic ' Elementary School Journal 60 (I960) 391-398

Purdom, T L The Value of Homogeneous Grouping Baltimore: Warwick and York, 1929

Ross, G A. "A Comparative Study of Pupil Progress in Ungraded and Graded Pri mary Programs." Dissertation Abstracts 28 (1967): 2146-A. (University Micro films No. 67-16, 428, 462^470.)

Sharan, S. "Cooperative Learning in Small Groups: Recent Methods and Effects on Achievement, Attitudes, and Scxrial Rela tions Review of Educational Research 50(1980): 241-271

Sharan, S, and Y Sharan Small-Group Teaching Englewtxxi Cliffs, NJ Pren tice-Hall, 1976

Simpson, R , and R. Martison Educational Programs for Gifted Pupils: A Report to the California Legislature Pursuant to Section 2 of Chapter 2.185. Statutes of 7957. (ERIC No. ED 100 072, 1961)

Slavin, R. E. Cooperative Learning New York: Longman, 1983

Slavin, R. E. "Team-Assisted Individualiza- tion: Combining Cooperative [.earning and Individualized Instruction in Mathe matics " In Learning to Cooperate, Co operating to Learn, edited by R E Sla vin, S. Sharan, S Kagan, R. 1 lert/-I.azaro- witze, C. Webb, and R Schmuck New York: Plenum, 1985

76 EDUCATIONAI. LEADERSHIP

Slavin, R E "Grouping for Instruaion in the Elementary School." Educational Psychologist 22 ( 1987a) : 109-127.

Slavin, R.E "Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in Elementary Schools: A Best Evidence Synthesis " Review of Ed- ucationalResearch 57 (1987b): 213-336.

Slavin, R E "Mastery Learning Reconsid ered ." Review of Educational Research 57(1987c): 175-213-

Slavin, R E "Making Chapter I Make a Difference" Phi Delta Kappan 69 (1987d); 110-119

Slavin, R E "Cooperative Learning and Student Achievement." In School and Classroom Organization, edited by R E Slavin Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. in press

Spivak, M L "Effeaiveness of Departmen tal and Self-contained Seventh- and Eighth-grade Classrooms" School Re t*w64(1956): 391-3%.

Stoakes, D W "An Educational Experiment with the Homogeneous Grouping of Mentally Advanced and Slow Learning Students in the Junior High School" Doctoral diss. University of Colorado, 1964

Thompson, G W "The Effects of Ability- Grouping upon Achievement in Elev enth Grade American History. "Journal of Experimental Education 42 ( 1974): 76-79.

TobinJ F An Eight Year Study of Classes Grouped within Grade Levels on the Basis of Reading Ability" Dissertation Abstracts 26 (1966): 3621A (University Microfilms No 66-345)

Ward, P E. "A Study of Pupil Achievement in Departmentalized Grades Four, Five, and Six." Dissertation Abstracts 30 (1970): 4749a (University Microfilms No. 70-1201)

West, J, and C Sievers "Experiment in Cross Grouping." Journal of Educa tional Research 54 (1960): 70-72.

Author's note This article is adapted from a review by Slavin (1987a) Prepara tion of this article was supported by a grant from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Ed ucation (No OERI-G-86-0006) However, the opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent OERI posi tions or policy.

Robert E. Slavin is Director, Elementary School Program, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, The Johns Hopkins University, 3505 N. Charles St. Baltimore, MD 21218

STAFF & GRRICnrMDHYFLOPMHN FOR COOPERATIVE LEARNING

SEPTEMBER 1988

1R\\(

Rather than cooperative learning methodologies, this symposium will focus on implementation issues such as:

STAFF DEVELOPMENT

Inservice sequences to achieve whole-school change Designing effective cooperative learning inservice programs

COACHING

Designing coaching programs Presentation of existing coaching models

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Developing/choosing cooperative teaming curriculum Presentation of existing cooperative materials

ADMINISTRATION

Rote in creating or supporting whole-school change Role in establishing a collaborative school

HIGHER EDUCATION

Preservice cooperative learning education University-school partnership for whole-school change

Robert Slavin, Pat Wilson O'Leary. Spencer Kagan Laurel Robertson, Carole Cooper

Sponsored by The Development Studies Center

If you wish to present or want additional program information, contact Susan Unquhart-Brown, 415-838-7633 Information regarding hotel accommodations will be mailed with registration confirmation Purchase order or check payable to: Developmental Studies Center, 111 Deerwood Mace, Suite 165. San Ramon CA94583

Registration Fee: J235 Deadline: Oct 24. 1988

BUSINESS ADDRESS

HOME ADDRESS

Copyright © 1988 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.