student grouping

Discussion in 'General Education' started by creativemonster, Oct 4, 2017.

  1. Rockguykev

    Rockguykev Connoisseur

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    199

    Oct 11, 2017

    For someone who gets so upset when others put words in their mouth you sure make quite a few assumptions.
     
    futuremathsprof likes this.
  2. gr3teacher

    gr3teacher Phenom

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    4,114
    Likes Received:
    625

    Oct 11, 2017

    I have spent the past six years as a gifted teacher. I did my masters thesis on gifted ed. I have a state endorsement on gifted ed. I have presented at state conferences for the gifted. I am preparing to begin a doctoral program with an emphasis on gifted learners. I can honestly say I have never seen data which shows that gifted learners do best in heterogeneous groupings. At best, I've seen that giving them differentiation within a heterogeneous classroom is better than doing nothing.
     
    Backroads and futuremathsprof like this.
  3. futuremathsprof

    futuremathsprof Companion

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    67

    Oct 11, 2017

    Once again, you are exactly correct.

    Good luck on your doctoral program. I, myself, am going to start an Ed.D in STEM Leadership pretty soon. I’m doing it mostly because it will make out my pay, haha! I’m one column away. So close! :)
     
  4. Tyler B.

    Tyler B. Devotee

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    218

    Oct 12, 2017

    "Grouping by ability can limit the knowledge and experience available to the group and lead to “group think.” It can have negative effects on students’ self-efficacy if they perceive that they have been placed in a group for which the teacher has low expectations (D. W. Johnson & F. P. Johnson, 2009). On a practical level, ability grouping does not reflect the world of work— students need experience working with people of varying interests, experiences, and ability"
    Dean, Ceri B, et al. Classroom Instruction That Works : Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement, ASCD, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, .
    Created from lewisclark on 2017-10-12 08:53:56.
     
    bella84 likes this.
  5. Caesar753

    Caesar753 Multitudinous

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    13,943
    Likes Received:
    1,708

    Oct 12, 2017

    What this says to me is that high-achievers placed in groups with low-achievers may not work as hard because they believe that the teacher doesn't expect as much from the group.

    As for the rest, I certainly think that it's important for all kids to experience working with others of varying abilities. At the same time, I don't necessarily agree that this should be the purpose of all group work. Shouldn't group work be used to promote the material at least sometimes? And if so, shouldn't the high-achievers have the opportunity to experience group activities where the focus is on learning high-level material while maintaining high-level expectations?
     
    Backroads and futuremathsprof like this.
  6. futuremathsprof

    futuremathsprof Companion

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    67

    Oct 12, 2017

    http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?cid=...tm/?uuid=1A7DF4D0-C175-11E2-8893-03A9B3743667

    Flexible ability grouping, when used appropriately, works. According to a 2010 meta-analysis by Kelly Puzio and Glenn Colby, students who were grouped by ability within a class for reading were able to make up to an additional "half of a year's growth in reading." Similarly, a 2013 National Bureau of Economic Research study of students who were grouped by ability found that the performance of both high and low performing students significantly improved in math and reading, demonstrating the universal utility of this tool, particularly as our classrooms become more academically diverse.

    http://www.davidsongifted.org/Search-Database/entry/A10218

    Two major sets of meta-analyses on research findings on grouping have been completed, one set at the University of Michigan (e.g., J. Kulik & Kultk, 1991) and the other at Johns Hopkins University (Slavin, 1987.1990). The two sets of meta-analyses together examine findings from five kinds of grouping programs:

    Findings from the Michigan and Johns Hopkins meta-analysis agree quite well, but overall conclusions of the two research teams differ. The Michigan team found no clear effects of grouping in some programs, moderate positive benefits in others and huge positive benefits in still others. Hopkins researchers found moderate positive benefits from some grouping programs and no negative or positive effects from others. The difference in conclusion seems to stem from differences in the scope of the Michigan and Hopkins analyses. The Michigan analysts concluded that the strongest benefits from grouping were found in programs in which there was a great deal of adjustment of curriculum for highly talented learners. The Hopkins meta-analysts did not find any strong positive effects of grouping, but they also did not examine grouping programs designed for highly talented students.

    A careful re-analysis of findings from all the studies included in the two sets of meta-analyses confirmed that higher aptitude students usually benefit academically from ability grouping. The academic benefits are positive but usually small when the grouping is done as a part of a broader program for students of all abilities. For example, XYZ grouping, in which little or no effort is made to adjust curriculum to the ability level of the classes, raise the test scores of higher ability students by about 0.1 standard deviations, or by about 1 month on grade-equivalent scale. Within-class and cross-grade programs, which entail moderate amounts of curricular adjustment, boost test scores of higher aptitude students by about 0.2 to 0.3 standard deviations, or by 2 to 3 months on a grade-equivalent scale.

    Benefits are larger in special classes for higher aptitude learners. Gains on standardized tests are especially large when the programs entail acceleration of instruction. Classes in which talented children cover four grades in three years, for example, usually boost achievement levels a good deal. Test scores of children accelerated in this fashion are about one year higher on a glade-equivalent scale than they would be if the children were not accelerated. Enriched classes, in which students have a varied educational experience, raise test scores by more moderate amounts. The average gain from such classes is 4 months on the grade-equivalent scales of typical standardized tests. Although smaller than the gains from accelerated classes, gains of this size are still impressive because in many enriched classes students spend as much as half their time on cultural material (e.g., foreign languages, music, art) that is not directly tested on standard achievement tests.

    I will stick with grouping and my students will continue to succeed.
     
    Backroads likes this.
  7. futuremathsprof

    futuremathsprof Companion

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    67

    Oct 12, 2017

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170113094017.htm

    Schools should use both ability grouping and acceleration to help academically talented students, reports a new Northwestern University study that examined a century of research looking at the controversial subject.

    The widely debated educational techniques effectively increase academic achievement at a low cost and can benefit millions of students in U.S. school systems, according to the study, published in Review of Educational Research.

    "Although acceleration is widely supported by research as an effective strategy for meeting the needs of advanced learners, it's still rarely used, and most schools do not systematically look for students who need it," said study co-author Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, director of the Center for Talent Development at the Northwestern's School of Education and Social Policy.

    The U.S. spends nearly $600 billion a year on public education, but research questions whether the resources are reaching high-performing students. A recent policy brief reported that 20 to 40 percent of elementary and middle school students perform above grade level in reading and 10 to 30 percent do so in math, according to the study.

    Proponents of ability and acceleration point to benefits for children who are under-challenged in their grade-level classroom. With a more homogenous learning environment, it's easier for teachers to match their instruction to a student's needs and the students benefit from interacting with comparable academic peers.

    But the research indicated that students benefited from within-class grouping, cross-grade subject grouping and gifted and talented programs, although the benefits were negligible for between class groupings.

    Accelerated students performed significantly better than non-accelerated same-age peers, and comparable to non-accelerated older students, according to the study.

    Northwestern's Saiying Steenbergen-Hu of the Center for Talent Development was the lead author of the report, which was also co-authored by Matthew Makel of Duke University's Talent Identification Program. The authors reviewed 172 empirical studies on the efficacy of ability grouping as well as 125 studies on acceleration.
     
  8. futuremathsprof

    futuremathsprof Companion

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    67

    Oct 12, 2017

  9. futuremathsprof

    futuremathsprof Companion

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    67

    Oct 12, 2017

    You are correct Caesar. Proponents of mixed-group learning would rather focus on inclusiveness and diversity instead of understanding, critical thinking, retention, and problem-solving enhancement.
     
  10. Tyler B.

    Tyler B. Devotee

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    218

    Oct 12, 2017

    I frequently group my high flyers together on projects. If they already know the content, or can learn it quickly, any student can go deeper or faster into the curriculum. I'm all for acceleration, but not for static groups. I don't have a high group, I have a lesson and a personal rule not to teach a student anything they already know.

    What I object to is the pernicious practice of grouping low-achieving students together. This can result in lower achievement, than when supported and kept with the rest of the class.

    Why cling to an instructional strategy that can harm students when it's not necessary? Teachers can meet the needs of the stragglers without harming them.
     
    Backroads likes this.
  11. futuremathsprof

    futuremathsprof Companion

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    67

    Oct 12, 2017

    The research I provided speaks for itself and there are loads more out there. Ability grouping benefits the high-level performers tremendously, as well as the middle-level students and low-level performers, too, when done right.

    Please read some of the scholarly articles I provided. Many were done by very prestigious and reputable sources and agree with what I have stated already. Many teachers in this same forum, such as myself, have had great success with ability grouping. Stop saying it’s bad because it isn’t.
     
    2ndTimeAround likes this.
  12. Tyler B.

    Tyler B. Devotee

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    218

    Oct 12, 2017

    I think you provided some interesting information. I appreciate your postings. It's clear you are a caring teacher. I'm willing to admit that some studies show benefits to achievement in the low groups. These are counter to the studies I've been using for some of my writing on this topic, but I admit the information exists. It doesn't change my view: putting the low students together using static groups should be avoided.

    What would you think if it turns out that nearly every kid in the low group is poor, ELL, or a person of color? Could this be considered segregation? Could it be discrimination? Surely you are aware of the effects of teacher expectation on student performance. Even caring teachers are not immune from this form of bias. What if you could achieve the same or better academic results without putting all your low kids together? Wouldn't that be a superior teaching technique?


    Ability Grouping Practices in Elementary School and African American/Hispanic Achievement

    This study examines the impact of ability grouping practices on the achievement gains among African Americans and Hispanics during elementary school. Using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, the results strongly support the differential effects hypothesis of ability grouping. That is, students who are lower grouped for reading instruction learn substantially less, and higher-grouped students learn slightly more over the first few years of school, compared to students who are in classrooms that do not practice grouping . Overall, the results of our study call into question the notion that ability grouping is a beneficial practice in the earliest years of schooling.
    Is Part Of
    American Journal of Education, 2009, Vol.115(2), p.279-304
     
  13. futuremathsprof

    futuremathsprof Companion

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    67

    Oct 12, 2017

    I knew it would come to this.

    Let me just repost what I stated earlier:

    “Proponents of mixed-group learning would rather focus on inclusiveness and diversity instead of understanding, critical thinking, retention, and problem-solving enhancement.”

    Again, I care for all my students, not just the least able. However, I am not going to penalize my higher-performers and middle-performers for the sake of the lower-performers. The studies that I have listed show positive growth across the grade levels for all ability levels AND they have results that are statistically significant, not emotionally driven like what you just posted.
     
    2ndTimeAround likes this.
  14. futuremathsprof

    futuremathsprof Companion

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    67

    Oct 12, 2017

    And please stop with the PC nonsense. I am sick and tired of educators labeling standardized testing and ability grouping as discriminatory. Yeah, GATE, ETS, and AP classes are so bad. Give me a break.
     
  15. futuremathsprof

    futuremathsprof Companion

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    67

    Oct 12, 2017

    To give you a little backstory about myself: I contacted my elementary school principal and she said that in order to get into GATE and ETS at her school (I’m 25) I had to pass an IQ test. She doesn’t remember what my score was, but she said it was well above average to get into both programs. FYI, I am multicultural, came from humble beginnings, was raised in a working class family, am a first-generation college student, and my parents were below average to average students at best.
     
  16. futuremathsprof

    futuremathsprof Companion

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    67

    Oct 13, 2017

    Segregation does exist, but not in the way you say it does. Just because someone is put on the accelerated track does not mean that minority students students are being discriminated against. Case in point, Asian-Americans and international students from second- and third-world countries do extremely well in American schools when they emigrate here so don’t give me that. And they have much worse circumstances than natural-born citizens whose families are at the poverty level.

    If you keep telling students that they are oppressed, then they are going to stay angry and give up.

    Pity-me attitude won’t get you anywhere and it won’t win you sympathy in my book. My friends and I grew up poor with nothing and we were able to make it because we never used our destitution as an excuse. We knew if we wanted to achieve the American dream it was up to US to make it happen, not anyone else.
     
  17. Rockguykev

    Rockguykev Connoisseur

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    199

    Oct 14, 2017

    Where was this ever said?
     
    futuremathsprof likes this.
  18. futuremathsprof

    futuremathsprof Companion

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    67

    Oct 14, 2017

    He’s being overly politically correct because that’s all social justice warriors know how to do. When confronted with facts and logic they resort to emotion because feelings.
     
  19. Leaborb192

    Leaborb192 Connoisseur

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,518
    Likes Received:
    653

    Oct 14, 2017

    [​IMG]
     
    futuremathsprof likes this.
  20. futuremathsprof

    futuremathsprof Companion

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    67

    Oct 14, 2017

    Hahaha!
     

Share This Page

Members Online Now

  1. jadorelafrance,
  2. UpperMidwest,
  3. MrsC,
  4. JimG,
  5. vickilyn,
  6. bella84,
  7. Rabbitt,
  8. Leaborb192
Total: 571 (members: 9, guests: 438, robots: 124)
test