The effects of within class grouping on reading achievement: A meta-analytic synthesis Kelly Puzio & Glenn Colby Vanderbilt University

Overview of presentation  Brief introduction to grouping  Survey results suggest that teacher use of grouping in reading may be declining  Previous reviews have neglected reading outcomes  Research methods and results  Discuss trends and gaps in research

Organizing StudentsSchool Tracking or Special Programs Academic tracks Gifted Courses or Classes Special Education Between-class grouping Joplin Plan Cross-age peer tutoring Classroom Peer Tutoring Same age peer tutoring Within-class grouping Guided Reading (literacy level) Book Clubs (interest)Cooperative LearningLiterature Circle Grouping: how should learning be organized?

Why group students for reading?  Academic diversity: students have wide variety of literacy levels and interests  Learning is an interactive and social activity (Vygotsky, 1978)  Increased discourse: students may engage in more discourse (listening, explaining, negotiating, etc.), which may stir learning and mental development  Student motivation may be affected by a regular display of skills and knowledge  Small groups can provide an opportunity for differentiated instruction

 80% of teachers report grouping (Austin & Morrison, 1963; Weinstein, 1976).  56% of teachers report grouping students, but only 25% said this was the primary way for organizing reading instruction (Baumann, Hoffman, Duffy-Hester, and Moon Ro, 2000).  60% of teachers reported regularly grouping students (Chorzempa and Graham, 2006). Percent of Teachers using grouping Within-class grouping may be on the decline in reading instruction Teacher Surveys

Within-class grouping studies in Previous Reviews “There is not enough research on within-class ability grouping in reading to permit any conclusions” (Slavin, 1990, p. 320).

Current Study: Primary Research Questions 1.To what extent does within-class grouping impact student achievement in reading? 2.For which grade(s) or which students is within-class grouping most or least beneficial? 3.Do any moderators, especially measurement source, teacher development, and grouping type, help explain this effect?

Systematic Review  Guided by the Campbell Collaboration, a systematic review must have:  Clear inclusion/exclusion criteria  An explicit search strategy  Systematic Search for unpublished reports  Systematic coding and analysis of included studies  Meta-analysis (if possible)

Inclusion Criteria  Date : Study published in or after 1980  Subjects : Grades 2 – 12 in regular classroom settings  Design : Quasi-experimental or Experimental  Intervention : Grouping as central intervention or key component of wider intervention (CIRC, CORI). No peer tutoring interventions.  Outcome : The assessments must require students to “read” and show evidence of comprehension of extended text – no studies were admitted if they assessed only vocabulary, grammar, or punctuation.

Searching and screening studies Search Source Search Results C2 SPECTR186 CSA: ERIC IBBS PsycARTICLES PsycINFO Prior Reviews 1396 Proquest Digital Dissertations 199 Total4839  Stage 1: Abstracts screened: 4839  1590  Stage 2: Abstracts carefully read: 1590  233  Stage 3: Study reports examined: 233  75  Stage 4: Full Coding: 75  15  Most studies were excluded for two reasons: 1.No reading outcomes 2.No comparison group

Study Coding & Statistical Procedures  Coding : Every study was coded on 51 predetermined items: sample, research design, intervention, measurement, and effect size statistics  Effect Size Adjustments: Pretest, clustering, small sample size correction (Hedges’ g)  Main Effects Analysis: Random effects statistical model  Publication Bias Analysis : Duvall & Tweedie’s trim and fill procedure; Egger’s regression intercept test  Inter-rater reliability was compared on 5 studies that were separately coded (Kappa = 0.86; Pearson’s r = 0.98). Disagreements were discussed and resolved to consensus (Lipsey & Wilson, 2000)

Results: Included Studies  15 Unique Studies; 28 study cohorts*  Total Sample: 5,410 study participants  Interventions : CIRC, CORI, Cooperative Learning, STAD, QAR, Collaborative Strategic Reading  Grade : Grade 2-6 (13); Grade 7 – 10 (2)  Outcome Measures : Standardized (11) Researcher (4)  Intervention instructor: (14) Classroom teacher; (1) Researcher  Professional Development : (4) 10 hours; 5 NA  Length : (3) 20 weeks

Effects of within-class grouping on reading

Back to the research questions Q1 : To what extent does within class grouping impact reading achievement ? Mean Weighted ES = (0.08 < μ < 0.349). Q2 & Q3 : Are there any significant moderators of effects ? This question could not be answered with this data (Q = 9.91; I Square = 0.00).

Practical Significance of Effects  Is big or small?  Cohen’s social science index: 0.2, 0.5, or 0.8  22 effects used standardized measures – mean ES = 0.29  6 effects used researcher measures – mean ES = 0.07  Normative yearly reading growth on standardized assessments (Hill, Bloom, Black, & Lipsey, 2008)  Grade 2-3 = 0.60  Grade 3-4 = 0.36  Grade 4-5 = 0.40  Grade 5-6 = 0.32  Grade 6-7 = 0.23

Research Trends and gaps  Fidelity of implementation was not assessed in any study  Although computer and internet based reading is a diverse and growing field, no quasi-experimental or experimental studies met our inclusion criteria  Although English Language Learner (ELL) reading is a growing field, only a few studies have investigated the effects of within-class grouping on ELL reading achievement

Discussion & Limitations  The data suggest that within class grouping is beneficial for reading  The majority of included studies used cooperative groups; focused searches for guided reading, interest- based groups, and other grouping types is underway now  Peer tutoring studies were excluded in this synthesis but these could be included in a larger study  If you know of any other studies that have examined the impact of grouping on reading, please let us know

The End