The Effects of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Grouping Arrangements on Reading Achievement Oksana Vulchyn Instructor: Dr. Sharon A. O’Connor- Petruso Ed Fall 2008

Table of Contents 1.Introduction 2.Statement of the Problem 3.Review of Related Literature 4.Statement of the Hypothesis 5.References

Introduction Schools of today are ethnically, culturally, intellectually, and socio-economically diverse. According to Hodgkinson (2002), in ten-fifteen years, at least half of the population of the public school students in the United States will be non-white. In many school districts, a large percentage of the population will come from many different locations from around the world and speak many different languages. According to the National Center of Education Statistics, in 2000, seventeen percent of all public school students were Hispanic, and by 2025, nearly one in four school-age children will speak Spanish as their primary language (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Educating children of very different abilities is one of the most prominent advancements in teachers’ skill over the last decade. Teachers arrange the environments in the classrooms and schools so that the children learn a great deal for themselves, either individually or in small groups. The problem of grouping the students in the classroom has always aroused interest. Early research argues for homogeneous grouping to meet the needs of individual students, on the other hand, more current research questions ability grouping practices. How can diverse needs be met? Will a student learn better if grouped with others of similar ability? Or will he or she learn better if grouped with students of varied abilities? Educators, theorists, philosophers, researches, and evaluators have put a great deal of effort into studies trying to answer these questions.

Statement of the Problem The disparity of the backgrounds and experiences, changing demographics, social promotion, and inclusion attest the heterogeneous nature of today’s schools and classrooms. For this reason, the reality of any school situation dictates some kind of grouping. Schools group students in different ways. One way is to group students in homogeneous, commonly based on a division by standardized tests of mental ability often combined with measures of achievement, classrooms. Another way is to divide students by chronological age within a heterogeneous classroom. There are numerous studies examining the benefits and drawbacks of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping arrangements and their effects on students’ achievement. However, some key questions remain unaddressed, preventing us from drawing the conclusions about the effects of these educational practices. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping arrangements on reading achievement of the third-grade students.

Review of the Literature The selection and grouping of students on the basis of ability in the elementary school classroom and its effects on the achievement is a debate that has long been argued by the educators, researches, policymakers, and administrators (Moody, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1997; Saleh, Lazonder & De Jong, 2005; Wilkinson & Townsend, 2000). Ireson and Hallam found that, “research on ability grouping has a long history, going back to the early 1900’s and encompasses both quantitative surveys and ethnographic work” (1999, p. 344).

Review of the Literature (continues) Although researches admit that the social grouping practices are not responsible for the success or failure of a certain program (Cunningham, Hall, & Defee, 1998), it is believed that the way the students are grouped for instruction serves as a facilitator of teaching and learning (Moody et al., 1997; Elbaum, Schumm, & Vaughn, 1997; Chorzempa & Graham, 2006). The studies by Saleh, et al. (2005), Fiedler, Lange, & Winebrenner (2002), and Hutchinson (2003) state positive effects for ability grouping. Pertaining to the cognitive-developmental perspective of Bandura (1977), learning is partly a social process, and that it is socially supported. In a class broken into instructional groups, the socio-cultural milieu fosters the interaction among students around cognitively appropriate tasks.

Review of the Literature (continues) On the other hand, Mills found that “those opposed to ability grouping are concerned about the perceived psychological damage to low achievers, the slower pace and lower quality of instruction, the more inexperienced or sometimes less-capable teachers assigned to teach lower-ability students, the low expectations for student performance held by teachers, and the absence of strong behavioral peer role models in classes for low-ability students” (1998, p.1). Generally, the advocates and opponents identify advantages and disadvantages for ability grouping across numerous educational tasks and outcomes (Elbaum, et. al, 1999; Schullery & Schullery, 2006; Chorzempa & Graham, 2006).

Statement of the Hypothesis Twenty low-ability achieving students will attain high reading test scores in heterogeneous instruction at P. S. 152 in Brooklyn, New York.

References Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press. Chorzempa, B. F., & Graham, S. (2006, August). The primary-grade teachers’ use of within-class ability grouping in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (3), Retrieved September 9, 2008, from PsycARTICLES database. Cunningham, P. M., Hall, D. P., & Defee, M. (1998). Nonability-grouped, multilevel instruction: Eight years later. The Reading Teacher, 51 (8), Elbaum, B., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1999). Mixed-ability grouping for reading: What students think [Electronic version]. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14 (1), Elbaum, B. E., Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1997, May). Urban middle-elementary students’ perceptions of grouping formats for reading instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 97 (5), Retrieved September 30, 2008, from JSTOR database. Fiedler, E. D., Lange, R. E., & Winebrenner, S. (2000). In search of reality: Unraveling the myths about tracking, ability, grouping, and gifted [Special issue]. Roeper Review, 24, Hodgkinson, H. (2000). Educational demographics: What teachers should know. Educational Leadership, 58 (4), Hutchison, D. (2003). The effect of group-level influences on pupils’ progress in reading. British Educational Research Journal, 29 (1), Retrieved September 11, 2008, from JSTOR database. Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (1999, September). Raising standards: Is ability grouping the answer. Oxford Review of Education, 25 (3), Retrieved September 9, 2008, from JSTOR database.

References Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., & Baines, E. (2002, April). Pupil grouping in primary school classrooms: Sites for learning and social pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 28 (2), Retrieved September 30, 2008, from JSTOR database. Mills, R. (1998, June). Grouping students for instruction in middle schools. (Digest No. EDO-PS-98-4). Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, University of Illinois. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED419631). Moody, S. W., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1997, November/December). Instructional grouping for reading: Teachers’ view. Remedial and Special Education, 18, Retrieved September 10, 2008, from Education database. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Status and trends in the education of Hispanics. Retrieved October 2, 2008, from Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W., & De Jong, T. (2005, March). Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation. Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning and Cognition, 33 (2), Retrieved October 2, 2008, from ERIC database. (EJ733354). Schullery, N. M., & Schullery, S. E. (2006, August). Are heterogeneous or homogeneous groups more beneficial to students [Electronic version]. Journal of Management Education, 30 (4), Wilkinson, I. A. J., & Townsend, M. A. R. (2000, March). From Rata to Rimu: Grouping for instruction in best practice New Zealand classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 53 (6),

THE END